which doesn't mean much. it could be that people who would be interested in learning type theory in the first place would prefer static typing regardless, with a similar argument for the case of dynamic typing

That's not relevant to the original point, which was that the fact that dynamic typing enthusiasts not knowing type theory makes debate on the subject not interesting.

Case in point: just look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7054960 , where someone who apparently likes dynamic types lists a ton of studies done by other people who like dynamic types where modern dynamically typed languages are tested against the best static types that the early 60's have to offer.

The only part I'd change about that diagram is move the "knows type theory" area way down, so that the majority of static typing enthusiasts are not covered either (but so that the proportion of static typing enthusiasts that are covered is much greater than the proportion of dynamic typing enthusiasts who are covered.)

It's depressing to talk about types when living in a world where both sides of the fence consists mostly of people who think static typing means Java, and where new, "exciting" statically typed languages like Go can have a type system that completely ignores all development that has happened in the past 50 years.

Modern static types are actually good, actually useful, and only ever bother you when not bothering you would mean that your code can crash at excecution time.

not necessarily a response to your comment, but i think you underestimate just how much the static/dynamic preference rests on fundamental psychology.

for example, generally speaking i only use basic data structures (lists or hash tables), so introducing types would be over-engineering (note, i'm familiar with e.g. Haskell's type system). for me the idea of typing implies a programming style complicated enough to require it. it's only at a larger architectural scale that i think typing pays off

that said, C# is still my favorite production language.