The dumbest blog on the internet?

If you want to read what happens when an “evolutionary psychologist,” complete with the fullest measure of the bizarre misuses of evolutionary theory that that term entails, starts a blog, go here, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Worst post ever: “Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist,” which manages both to have a bad argument for the position it does defend (sexual harassment is just a mating strategy), but also no argument at all for the deliberately inflammatory position asserted in the title (sexual harassment is not only a mating strategy, but one that results from the absence of sexism).

Share


10 Responses to “The dumbest blog on the internet?”

  1. eric Says:

    Holy fucking shit!

  2. eric Says:

    And I see the blogger is the author of “Why beautiful people have more daughters”. I can’t help but wonder which sense of the word “have” he means; but I have no intention of reading the book to find out.

  3. Stephen Bank Says:

    He can’t be sexist, he thinks Ann Coulter should be president!

    I can’t believe Psychology Today publishes that horse shit. Is it really that much of a rag?

  4. Richard Says:

    also no argument at all for the deliberately inflammatory position asserted in the title

    Unfortunately, there’s a “part ii” for that. To save you the bother, here is the argument: men harass/bully other men, so[?] it is non-sexist for men to harass/bully women. “In other words”, men harass/bully women because they’re non-sexist.

    (I think I must speak a different language from this guy…)

    p.s. You might want to add the rel=”nofollow” tag to your links, to avoid rewarding the idiot with google-juice.

  5. Paul Gowder Says:

    Stephen, psychology today is pretty bad in the print edition — if we apply the general rule that a print publication’s blogs will be about 3 orders of magnitude worse, that about hits this guy.

    Richard, thank you for taking that bullet for me. I’m tempted to run a contest for best reductio of that “argument” that does not involve the too-easy conclusion that the Klan lynched black people because it’s not racist, or the Hitler equivalent. (Links edited.)

  6. Michael Drake Says:

    This species of evolutionary psychologist never met a strange inversion of reasoning they didn’t like.

  7. eric Says:

    On Kingsley Browne’s web page at Wayne State, there is a picture of a chimpanzee with the legend “no Kingsley Browne”. I suspect that was placed there at the insistence of the chimp.

  8. Steve M. Says:

    Also, apparently psychology demonstrates that Aaron Sorkin’s writing is superior to Shakespeare’s.

  9. Thomas Says:

    Apparently the guy is not too good at statistics. Andy Gelman, a statician at Columbia, just published a short piece showing that the so-called findings about beautiful people having more daughters is merely a result of bad statistics:

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/of_beauty_sex_a.html

  10. eric Says:

    To be fair, the “beautiful people have more daughters” nitwit is a different nitwit than the “men sexually harass women because they’re not sexist” nitwit. But perhaps someone can write an article on “Why Evo Psych Nitwits Cite Other Evo Psych Nitwits”.

Leave a Comment