So I get that the author has a lot of careful "this is my lived experience" and "this is a guess" disclaimers... but isn't it premature to ask "why", when there's nothing to back up the existence or characteristics of the phenomenon?
1000s of data points are evidence, even if they aren’t logged in a lab notebook. No one except ideologues needs a study to say men are stronger than women; the broad outline of the autistic manner of speaking is equally obvious. The details are worth study, but you have to have no exposure to the relevant populations to argue with the existence of the difference.
So I get that the author has a lot of careful "this is my lived experience" and "this is a guess" disclaimers... but isn't it premature to ask "why", when there's nothing to back up the existence or characteristics of the phenomenon?
> when there's nothing to back up the existence of the phenomenon?
What do you mean?
I'll clarify, by "nothing" I mean no objective data, as contrasted to the author's subjective impressions I brought up just before.
There are several places where the author has created mockups of how they think some data would look if it were collected.
1000s of data points are evidence, even if they aren’t logged in a lab notebook. No one except ideologues needs a study to say men are stronger than women; the broad outline of the autistic manner of speaking is equally obvious. The details are worth study, but you have to have no exposure to the relevant populations to argue with the existence of the difference.