I don't have access to the article - my comment was about the figures specifically, as they were posted on Twitter (where I can see them. I don't have an FT subscription).
I'm critical/suspicious whenever a complex topic is presented as if it is apparently very simple, e.g. when people's political opinions apparently clearly follow a general rule across different countries and cultures (as in this case).
Without any evidence to back it up, I can imagine a different set if questions leading to different outcomes. Ideally, there would be a different newspaper who would set out to show that Women are more conservative (or some other different finding to the FT's), and the we'd be able to decide which method we find more compelling.
Having different opinions published by outlets that have the same readership is how scientific findings are disseminated and judged (e.g. two different theories both published by Nature, and read by Nature readers). In the case of newspapers, people of one opinion tend to read one subset of newspapers, and people of another opinion the other, which means that the kind of weighing up of evidence doesn't happen in the same way.
Anyway, my comments were made in good faith, in the spirit of someone just saying what they think, as is the way with HN. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
I'm critical/suspicious whenever a complex topic is presented as if it is apparently very simple, e.g. when people's political opinions apparently clearly follow a general rule across different countries and cultures (as in this case).
Without any evidence to back it up, I can imagine a different set if questions leading to different outcomes. Ideally, there would be a different newspaper who would set out to show that Women are more conservative (or some other different finding to the FT's), and the we'd be able to decide which method we find more compelling.
Having different opinions published by outlets that have the same readership is how scientific findings are disseminated and judged (e.g. two different theories both published by Nature, and read by Nature readers). In the case of newspapers, people of one opinion tend to read one subset of newspapers, and people of another opinion the other, which means that the kind of weighing up of evidence doesn't happen in the same way.
Anyway, my comments were made in good faith, in the spirit of someone just saying what they think, as is the way with HN. I didn't mean to offend anyone.