I know you&#x27;re just doing your normal schtick of incorrectly assuming that everyone else is stupid (obviously no one, including blowski, thinks &quot;to not be sexist, you need to ignore information and make worse decisions&quot;), but this time you have accidentally stumbled on an interesting point. I know you don&#x27;t care one way or another, but for the sake of other readers, I&#x27;d like to point it out(and BTW, your specific example (taken from blowski) isn&#x27;t really sexist as I don&#x27;t quite see how it keeps women away from power, but that&#x27;s beside the point):<p>&gt; I need to ignore information and make worse decisions?<p>Ignoring information and making worse decisions are two different things. Or, more precisely, by <i>not ignoring</i> some statistical data you are ignoring <i>other</i> pieces of information, such as our understanding of social dynamics. Ignoring yesterday&#x27;s information about the train&#x27;s arrival time would only lead to a much better decision making if you want to get to the train on time and you know that the train runs on a different schedule on weekends and yesterday was a Sunday. A piece of data is mostly useless (and even misleading) if you don&#x27;t know what model it samples. Statistical data on human behavior is usually very bad information because history shows us that <i>preferences</i> change all the time (except for obvious things, like that people want power and are afraid of death). In fact, if women preference for frozen yogurt over pizza stayed <i>constant</i> throughout the ages it would be the exception rather than the rule.<p>If you base your decision <i>only</i> on <i>statistical</i> information of the kind you describe, you&#x27;re creating a conservative feedback loop. We now know that people&#x27;s assumptions about others&#x27; behavior may affect the other&#x27;s behavior, and so behaving in accordance with past behavior (because that&#x27;s what most of your information is really about) simply perpetuates the current condition.<p>The information you shouldn&#x27;t ignore is the deeper information that comes from the actual study of social dynamics. That information tells us that changing your behavior to not conform to past behavior would (and constantly does) change society&#x27;s future state. This is where social dynamics diverge from physics and the train schedule. We can <i>decide</i> to affect them (not necessarily determine them, because it&#x27;s very hard to predict the behavior of such a complex system, but our actions definitely change the dynamics; we know this for a fact).<p>The only question is, which way do you <i>want</i> to direct society: do you want to keep it as it is for as long as possible, or change it according to your values?