Reading that study made my head hurt, and its no surprise that it was run almost by Ankita, Ohad, Gidi and Finklestein (everyone here would disregard it based on that if it didn't agree with you). Its complete garbage in formatting, meaning you cannot grasp anything about it without reading the entire thing (which you always should, but is bad form) and its written heavily to lead to its point.

And the first half I read before I tapped out is completely useless to its point. They make people aware of a problem, and then give them a totally neutral statement where that problem can be at play and conclude that because people see a problem its a specific DEI issue. And even then, its usually only numbers ranging from 10-25% more likely which is very low for such a leading setup.

It even pretends to have a control group when there is no control that its DEI specifically at play and not simple emotional priming.

What its getting at its likely completely true and that is why even in their shit study it shines through. But its just as homosexual to go "WELL STUDIES SAY" like a Leftist when its on the other foot, because, as is usually the case with theirs, its badly run and trying to make statements well above what it portrays.

Its also why you should always read the study itself instead of the article talking about it. Because the article hypes it up well beyond what it says, as always.