For example, the view that "Women buy the propaganda that the state is their daddy and that it will keep them safe. The state uses their biology against them" (an actual quote from someone on Facebook responding to the same article Tom is responding to) is patently insulting and does more to drive off women from this movement than "biological differences" ever could. It smacks of oversimplification, which is what a lot of libertarians do when forced to answer the tough questions about capitalism, race/gender relations, and even the nature of authority itself in a few cases.
I also find it mildly amusing how Caplan is using the Meyers-Briggs Test to confirm his views. That test is nothing more than pop psychology, and it is notoriously shoddy in methodology and a whole bunch of other things. It really should not be used for any serious psychological analysis. Some sources even fully categorize it as pseudoscience.
It is certainly true that libertarians tend to be "scientific" and over-analytical, and often ignore how someone will personally take another person analyzing them or making generalizations.
For example, people taking offense at the suggestion that woman may tend to look to the state to take care of them does not come to mind when making the observation. Lack of awareness of how others may take something is especially stereotypical of Myers-Briggs NT types.
Back to the "analysis" again, if we look at the healthcare debate, I will go out on limb and say that it is an issue that is more important to woman. Ensuring that everyone has access to healthcare is going to resonate more with women than men. The party that promises to provide it to everyone is going to attract voters based on that. Obviously, government playing Santa Claus to constituents is usually a winning strategy for statists. It boils down to who gets the presents that they want. Welfare is another handout that generally targets woman, so much so that it's pretty much standard procedure in the "industry" to insist that men (husbands, fathers) not be part of the picture in order to receive benefits.
What do men like? They like to play soldier. They like to play cops and robbers. Even if they don't directly get jobs from the government in those areas, they will tend to support parties that cater to them with rhetoric and spending.
The idea that government shouldn't be doing any of these things probably doesn't have a male/female bias. It's the sales pitches (propaganda) for big government that cater to certain demographics.
Myers-Briggs is brought up with regard to these issues as it is basically a poll of certain preferences, and as with any poll, it can be broken down by demographics. It is nothing more than a categorization. Now the "indicator" tests are terribly flawed, and often give erroneous results. But those who study Myers-Briggs look at large sample sizes, where trends can be determined more accurately. Myers-Briggs as a categorization is no more or less scientific than "animal-vegetable-mineral".
And the MB statistics on men and women in no way state that all men or all women are one way or another. Everyone is an individual, and can be any type. There is a slight gender bias in the T/F component, but that is a generalization, and does not apply to any given individual.
Hopefully this isn't all "patently insulting". I wouldn't know for sure. That's a blind spot in my Myers-Briggs type.
