Not solely that? I could see that statement as a tiny bit of progress, except for the simple fact that this thead isn't even remotely related to that. It's a complete non sequitur, and has been the entire time, as I've oft repeated-- you completely imagine that dimension, it is all your own projection here. All I have ever said is that the burden to produce evidence is on the person who asserts there is an innate difference, and for obvious reasons. The only argument in this thread that has met the burden of evidence is the opposite argument-- it did not even incur the burden of evidence, yet met that burden anyway! And still you think this thread has something to do with political correctness? What a chip, you're looking in the mirror here.

This is apparently a claim that the data in this thread does not make a convincing case. Actually, it does, and as evidence I cite the fact that all the data that is environment-controlled gives the clear conclusion, as interpreted by the experts involved (no, not just me), that there is no innate signal in this data. I add to that the further evidence that you have presented not one single argument, not one, based on controlled data of the contrary claim that there is an innate difference in math skills (I keep having to specify that last bit or else you fly off on a tangent about how there are innate differences between women and men, but of course everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows that). And that is true, despite the logical place to put the burden of evidence.

Not one of those examples has a particle to do with this thread, which is what I keep trying to tell you.

People, what is happening in this thread, and this is the simple truth, is that all kinds of scientific environmentally controlled evidence has been presented, from the OP and right on through, from at least five separate sources of controlled data, that there simply is no innate differences in overall mathematical aptitude that stems from the presence or absence of a y chromosome in someone's genetic makeup. Really, it has, the evidence is completely clear, simply review the thread. However, for some reason, the fact that this clear conclusion emerges in a way that the "politically correct movement" would like it to, somehow is supposed to imply that the conclusion itself stems from that movement. That simply is not logic, what more can I say.