The impeccable logic of evolutionary psychology: spit or swallow?

Jerry Coyne carries out an amusing exercise in reasoning like an evolutionary psychologist: why does human semen taste bad? It turns out that it is really easy to invent all kinds of entirely reasonable rationalizations for it: in particular, it’s to promote ejaculation in the orifice that is more likely to result in pregnancy, since women can’t get pregnant by way of their stomach. It’s all deductively logical, but built on premises floating in thin air, with no empirical foundation at all…the usual flaw on which evolutionary psychology fails.

It does open up all kinds of angels-dancing-upon-pins sorts of questions. By the same logic, shouldn’t most women find anal sex extremely distasteful and unpleasurable (there’s another subject for Coyne to use in an informal poll — or maybe not, unless he really wants a reputation as a perv). Would the unusual anatomical arrangement in Deep Throat be evidence against evolution? And say…shouldn’t there be selection against male interest in fruitless pornography? There’s potential for a whole industry to flower around the pursuit of these questions. With illustrations.

Are all evolutionary psychologists this bad at thinking?

Uh-oh. Gad Saad is polluting the discourse again, this time in a vain attempt to discredit the concept of toxic masculinity. It’s embarrassingly bad. I would say that you need to first understand the concept if you hope to debunk it, and Saad does not; if you do not, then all your floundering about will simply reinforce the idea and lead you to use examples that actually demonstrate the phenomenon.

Toxic masculinity is actually not that hard to understand. It’s not a rejection of masculinity itself; it’s a problem that arises when men are socialized to conform to a cultural stereotype that doesn’t actually match their nature.

bell hooks wrote this quote in her chapter called Comrades in Struggle: “…Yet the poor or working class man who has been socialized via sexist ideology to believe that there are privileges and powers he should possess solely because he is male often finds that few if any of these benefits are automatically bestowed him in life.” One of the “powers” that men are socialized to believe that they have to embody is masculinity. Masculinity seems to be the running force of patriarchy, but this term has a very specific definition under patriarchy that is not inclusive of all forms of masculinity. This phenomenon is called toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity “refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s the stereotype of the steely-eyed muscular man who compels women to obey his will. The True Man is sexually aggressive. And what does Gad Saad do? He opens with examples of animals that engage in aggressive competition for mates!

Female fiddler crabs and hens prefer males with extravagantly large claws and tails respectively. Ewes (female rams) will mate with the ram that wins the brutal intrasexual head-butting contest. They reward targeted aggression by granting sexual access. Needless to say, there are innumerable other examples of sexual selection that I might describe, but I suspect that you get the general gist. Are rams exhibiting toxic masculinity? Are female fiddler crabs succumbing to antiquated notions of masculinity as promulgated by the crab patriarchy?

We are not crabs or rams. Saad has cherry-picked a few examples of species with the ideal behavior he’d like to see humans exhibit, which curiously enough, are all about sexual aggression, males beating up on each other to win access to mates. Not only is this the naturalistic fallacy, not only is this selective use of the data, but it also reveals that he doesn’t know what toxic masculinity is. You need to look at animals with more behavioral plasticity and a greater range of potential roles to see toxic masculinity, where among a range of possibilities, males are confined to a narrower and often uncomfortable role by cultural pressures. Rams and crabs do not have that flexibility.

Oh, but let’s watch Saad show off his evolutionary psychology bullshit.

Let’s now apply the exact same evolutionary process (sexual selection) to humans. Evolutionary psychologists have documented universal patterns of mating preferences that are invariant across time and place. In no culture ever studied have women repeatedly preferred to mate with pear-shaped, low-status, tepid men possessing high-pitched, nasal voices. In no documented culture do women’s sexual fantasies revolve around granting sexual access to unemployed, unambitious men who occupy the lowest stratum of the social hierarchy.

First, yes, let’s look at human evolution. The lesson ought to be that humans have not evolved by a strategy of beating up your competition, mating, and wandering away, like a ram or a crab. Relationships between males and females have been far more complex, involving prolonged association, integration with larger social groups, and shared responsibilities in food gathering and child rearing. The “exact same evolutionary process (sexual selection)”? Nonsense.

As for his ideal preferences by women, I will note that both Saad and I share similar physiques, lack a booming baritone, and are in professions that aren’t regarded as particularly manly, and in fact are being ‘taken over’ by women, numerically. Yet we’re both married! And, I assume, we’re both married to women who are happy with their choices! How did that happen?

He also sneers at unemployed, unambitious men who occupy the lowest stratum of the social hierarchy, and yet, unemployed men somehow acquire willing partners. They can even be good partners. I have to think of my own parents, who were loving and dedicated to their family, who were also part of the lower classes that Saad would probably spit upon, and had qualities that Saad has elided — my father was a caring parent, hard-working, a good storyteller, loyal to his friends, sociable, and thoughtful. My parents married for love, against the wishes of her parents, yet most of my childhood was spent watching him bounce from job to job, struggling to get a reliable income, not because he was lazy and unambitious, but because good jobs were hard to find and fleeting when you got one in Seattle in the 1960s-1970s.

Saad relies on stereotyping of lowest stratum men, deciding that they’re ugly and undesirable, and that no woman would desire them, despite the obvious evidence that they do. That’s toxic masculinity! It’s the judgment that there is an ideal man based on a narrow, biased set of criteria, and then heaping contempt on the men who don’t match it in every particular.

Then he uses this bias to stereotype women.

Instead, women are attracted to “toxic masculine” male phenotypes that correlate with testosterone, and they are desirous of men who are socially dominant, who are strategically risk-taking in their behaviors, and who exhibit patterns of behaviors that will allow them to ascend the social hierarchy and defend their positions from encroachers.

Jesus. How did I ever end up with an attractive, intelligent wife? I’ve never had to battle encroachers, ever. Maybe it’s because Saad’s entire argument rests on denying the richness and complexity of human interactions.

Of course this does not imply that women are not attracted to intelligent, sensitive, kind, warm, and compassionate men. The ideal man is rugged and sensitive; masculine and caring; aggressive in some pursuits and gentle in others. Think of the male archetype in romance novels, which is a literary form almost exclusively read by women. He is a tall prince and a neurosurgeon. He is a risk-taker who wrestles alligators and subdues them on his six-pack abs, and yet is sensitive enough to be tamed by the love of a good woman. This archetype is universally found in romance novels read by women in Egypt, Japan, and Bolivia, precisely because it caters to women’s universal evolved sexual fantasies.

Uh, “six-pack abs” are a culturally constructed archetype. They require very low body fat and a rigorous pattern of focused body building to create, and wouldn’t have been at all common in evolving human populations. Likewise, alligator wrestling would have been a lethal hobby that would have led to grossly reduced fitness. Romance novels are also an artificial phenomenon, and probably represent a kind of super-stimulus, just like the bad sex portrayed in the porn consumed by men. They are a poor guide to the kind of deeper decision-making made by human beings in choosing life-long partners.

When engaging in sexual role-playing in the bedroom, few women ask that their male partners wear their Google C++ programmer uniform. They ask for the fireman suit to make its presence. James Bond, the epitome of “toxic masculinity,” does not cry at Taylor Swift concerts. His archetype is desired by women and envied by men.

Wait…a “fireman suit”? Like this? Once again, Saad seems to confuse reality with fantasy. Most women are going to have a more realistic attitude towards prospective partners.

I do agree that James Bond is an epitome of “toxic masculinity”, and he makes my case for me. If you desire to be like Bond, you are going to be an aspiring asshole. This is not a good thing. I shouldn’t have to say that, but really, not a good thing. I’ve also noticed that James Bond movies are not particularly popular among women — they tend to notice that all of his partners end up murdered or abandoned. And how do you know he doesn’t cry at Taylor Swift concerts? It seems to me that women would favor men with shared passions, and this claim that a truly desirable man would not be brought to tears by music is yet another example of toxic masculinity.

The inimitable equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a book back in 2001 titled The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (see our chat on my show THE SAAD TRUTH_144 (link is external)). How prescient she was! There has been a relentless ideological attack on masculinity, stemming from radical feminism, the most recent example of which is the bogus term “toxic masculinity.” It literally seeks to pathologize masculinity in ways that are profoundly harmful to the existential sense of self of young men.

But this whole essay is about pathologizing masculinity! Men are supposed to have six-pack abs, be rich, and live like James Bond — if you were seriously concerned about the existential sense of self of young men, you wouldn’t be promoting these ridiculous and harmful delusions about how men should be. You wouldn’t be setting up rams butting heads as an evolutionary ideal for human beings. There has not been on ideological attack on masculinity by anyone other than the anti-feminists, who set up this unrealistic cartoon of how men are supposed to be that denies the reality of human potential — that thinks that men should be more like James Bond than Mr Rogers. (By the way, if we were setting up an artificial ideal that said all men have to be like Mr Rogers, that would be a different kind of toxic masculinity, perhaps more benign, but also denying the range of human lives.)

Saad really needs to step back and look at what feminists actually say about toxic masculinity.

When men seek that control — when we feel it’s our due — and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

— James Hamblin

That’s toxic masculinity. And Gad Saad’s article is the pear-shaped embodiment of defining unrealistic expectations for men.

Rather than that phony, Christina Hoff Sommers, perhaps Saad ought to be reading a real inimitable feminist.

All men support and perpetuate sexism and sexist oppression in one form or another … Like women, men have been socialized to passively accept sexist ideology. While they need not blame themselves for accepting sexism, they must assume responsibility for eliminating it.

— bell hooks

I guess even Psychology Today has limits

Among the many reasons that I detest evolutionary psychology, one has a name: Satoshi Kanazawa. He has a blog on Psychology Today called The Scientific Fundamentalist, and earlier he published this charming article: Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?. Don’t bother trying to follow the link, the article has mysteriously disappeared from the site…although you can still find a copy here, if you really must.

I’m a little surprised that it’s gone. After all, Psychology Today had no problem with his loving look at American politics in which he wanted Ann Coulter for president, because she would have nuked the Middle East on 12 September 2001. That’s just the kind of guy he is.

In order to make his determination that black women are ugly, he draws on The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) which I now learn to my surprise has a subjective component in which the people doing the survey make judgments about the subjects’ appearance.

Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its respondents both objectively and subjectively. At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: 1 = very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 = attractive, 5 = very attractive. The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years.

Good grief…shades of Francis Galton! For those of you who don’t know, creepy old man Galton ogled women and judged them for looks.

I may here speak of some attempts by myself, to obtain materials for a “Beauty Map” of the British Isles. Whenever I have occasion to classify the persons I meet into three classes, “good, medium, bad,” I use a needle mounted as a pricker, wherewith to prick holes, unseen, in a piece of paper, torn rudely into a cross with a long leg. I use its upper end for “good”, the cross arm for “medium,” the lower end for “bad.” The prick-holes keep distinct, and are easily read off at leisure. The object, place, and date are written on the paper. I used this plan for my beauty data, classifying the girls I passed in streets or elsewhere as attractive, indifferent, or repellent. Of course this was a purely individual estimate, but it was consistent, judging from the conformity of different attempts in the same population. I found London to rank highest for beauty: Aberdeen lowest.

Because, as we all know, beauty is easily measured in a linear scale with no possibility of subjective bias (I say sarcastically). I’m quite pleased that no one in my family is a participant in Add Health, because I’d have to kick them out of my house when they came around. Same with Galton. Fortunately, his leering pseudo-statistical brain is now dust and slime.

Kanazawa is the kind of guy who looks at such shaky subjective evaluations, and without even considering the biases of these self-appointed judges, declares that

It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.

Wait a moment there…where in this study is the objective evaluation of attractiveness? Because Kanazawa can stack up a bunch of scores and make graphs does not mean that they have suddenly acquired the property of objectivity.

Can Kanazawa make his interpretations even worse? Yes, he can. He has a real talent for this. He generously concedes that, although black women are fat and blacks are less intelligent, their shortcomings in those areas, which are associated with the perception of beauty, are inadequate to explain why black women are so ugly, especially since black men are judged attractive, and lord knows, they have inferior IQs. But then, no loss: he also thinks Africans are too dumb to live.

It seems to have been purged from Psychology Today, but I suspect this article will soon find a happy home on the pages of Stormfront and other such aryan racist tripe.

And then there’s this idiocy:

There are many biological and genetic differences between the races. However, such race differences usually exist in equal measure for both men and women. For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness (because physical attractiveness is a measure of genetic and developmental health). But since both black women and black men have higher mutation loads, it cannot explain why only black women are less physically attractive, while black men are, if anything, more attractive.

That makes no sense. My ancestors, your ancestors, and Kanazawa’s ancestors were all African — we share mutations with all Africans from before the time our European and Asian ancestors left Africa, and those ancestors then accumulated new mutations at the same rate as the populations left behind in the ancestral homeland. We European/Asian folk inherited a subset of the totality of human genetic variation, but there’s nothing that implies Africans are or have been mutating faster than anyone else.

I know that not all evolutionary psychologists are this bad; more of them need to stand up and repudiate this bigoted clown and his ridiculous interpretations of sloppy data.

Student Post: More on Gender Dominance–An Evolutionary Psychological Approach

I have some thoughts on the topic of male and female dominance brought up by Blue_Expo.

In fact, it was the topic of a paper for my Evolution of Human Aggression class…

Females are under some different sexual selection pressures than males stemming from the fact that they are the limited sex. They can only produce a finite number of offspring and are heavily invested in their progeny. Perhaps this is the basis for the female dominance social hierarchies observed in bonobos (Parish et al., 1994) and hyenas (Jenks, 1995). In both these systems, offspring inherit their mother’s rank and a mother is willing to engage in physical combat or establish social coalitions designed to elevate their offspring in rank. Because rank determined ability to procure resources, survive and reproduce, and females had high parental investment, there was sufficient evolutionary pressure for females to evolve the capacity to establish dominance even over males on their offsprings’ behalf.

[Read more…]

Who’s that peeping out of the Aporia web page?

Have you ever heard of Aporia? It’s an online magazine. If you want to follow that link, feel free, but it will taint your search history, so let me just describe a little bit of what you’d see on the Aporia main page and spare you the contamination. There are articles about kinship realism, about men and romantic relationships, about incels and evolutionary psychology, about the feminism backlash, about the Roman Empire, about In Defense of German Colonialism, and a lot of nonsense about AI. The authors listed include:

All those links in that list are just to this site, where their names have popped up a lot in discussions of racism, but actually there are other sites that have much more in-depth analyses of those individuals — for instance, Hope Not Hate has a substantial investigation of Aporia and its contributors. These are not good people. These are some of the very worst eugenicists, racists, fascists, neo-Nazis, and all-around heinous bigots you can find on the internet. For example…

HDF is led by three men. The CEO and founder of Human Diversity Foundation LLC is Emil Kirkegaard. Kirkegaard is a well-known Danish scientific racist and far-right activist, having spoken at the Traditional Britain Group conference in 2022.

Kierkegaard’s disturbing views extend beyond race. In 2012, he published a blog on his website about paedophilia, suggesting that abusers should be allowed to rape children drugged with sleeping medicine. “If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape [sic],” he wrote. Kirkegaard later claimed he was merely discussing a hypothetical scenario. He now leads HDF’s research team.

In case you don’t know what HDF is, it is

  • The Pioneer Fund, a Nazi-affiliated eugenics organisation —thought to be essentially defunct — has rebranded as the Human Diversity Foundation (HDF)
  • Aporia is part of the HDF’s organisation, as is a scientific racism research team
  • Andrew Conru, the multimillionaire entrepreneur who created Adult Friend Finder, has given $1.3 million to HDF. After being contacted prior to this report’s publication, he said he would cut ties with the company
  • HDF has connections to Alternative für Deutschland, the far-right German party, and hopes to create a white-only ethnostate
  • HDF is working to create a cult of weapons-trained activists inspired by Scientology and the Nazi SS

Really, this is the worst of the worst. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.There was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father
rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench!

All you have to do is glance at their web page, and you will see exactly what they’re all about. They aren’t even trying to hide it, so there has to be something deeply wrong with you to be interested in reading it, and contributing to it? Unthinkable.

But now they have a new contributor.

Oh, hi, Steve.

Steven Pinker is genuinely one of our dumbest “public intellectuals.”

That’s so Dawkins

Richard Dawkins has attempted to answer the question “what is a woman” by inventing a definition, while simultaneously decrying attempts to answer such a question with a definition. It’s a sad state when he is reduced to such blatant sophistry.

It’s a long, far too long, article, not at all crisp and succinct, which is what you can expect when a man is floundering to impose untenable nonsense as objective biological fact. I’ll give you the one key paragraph.

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes. Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? Sir Ed Davey, leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, said that women “quite clearly” can have a penis. Words are our servants not our masters. One might say, “I define a woman as anybody who self-identifies as a woman, therefore a woman can have a penis.” That is logically unassailable in the same way as, “I define “flat” to mean what you call “round”, therefore the world is flat.” I think it’s clear that if we all descended to that level of sophistry, rational discourse would soon dig itself into the desert sand. I shall make the case that redefinition of woman as capable of having a penis, if not downright perverse, is close to that extreme.

I have to first mention that he’s wrong, that Davey is not imposing a definition in his argument; he’s making a reductio, that you can defeat a claim that a woman can’t have a penis by…finding a woman who has a penis. He has left open the criteria for womanhood, implying that it is a complex multidimensional problem that can’t be resolved with a single criterion.

To which Dawkins responds by inventing a single criterion that he calls the Universal Biological Definition! If you’re going to complain incorrectly that someone has fallaciously tried to resolve a problem by simply defining the problem away, don’t then indulge in your own attempt to resolve it with a definition! But here we go, Dawkins’ Universal Biological Definition:

I shall advocate instead what I shall call the Universal Biological Definition (UBD), based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD as the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms, and all the way through evolutionary history.

Problem: it is not a universal definition, and Richard Dawkins does not have the authority to tell all biologists what is true. If you ask the American Society for Reproductive Medicine or the NIH (at least, recently — they may not say this anymore as the Trump administration takes a wrecking ball to our research institutions) what the universal definition is, they’ll tell you:

The National Institutes of Health defines biological sex (“assigned sex”) as “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” also referred to by some as “sex traits.” All animals, including humans, have a sex.

Ideologically driven policymakers have introduced or enacted legislation and policies defining legal sex based on biological characteristics at birth, such as genitalia, chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy.

For example, a 2023 Kansas law defines males and females based on reproductive anatomy at birth, stating that females are individuals whose reproductive systems are developed to produce ovaries, and males are those whose systems are developed to “fertilize the ova” of a female. A 2023 Tennessee statute defines sex as a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.

All the scientific societies I have been associated with say something similar. It is rather arrogant of Dawkins, who is not a reproductive biologist, a developmental biologist, an endocrinologist, or has any other relevant credentials to think that he can ignore a consensus and simply decree that his simplistic definition is absolutely and completely universal and true.

Dawkins’ expertise is as an ethologist, someone who studies animal behavior. I don’t understand how an ethologist can come to the conclusion that there is only one simple parameter that determines everything, but I guess that’s the power of motivated reasoning.

He tries to justify it ethologically, but this whole section falls flat.

If you define females as macrogamete producers and males as microgamete producers, you can immediately account for the following facts (see any recent textbook of Ethology, Sociobiology, Behavioural Ecology or Evolutionary Psychology):

  1. In mammals it’s the females that gestate the young and secrete milk.
  2. In those bird species where only one sex incubates the eggs, or only one sex feeds the young, it is nearly always the females.
  3. In those fish that bear live young, it is nearly always the females that bear them.
  4. In those animals where one sex advertises to the other with bright colours, it is nearly always the males.
  5. In those bird species where one sex sings elaborate or beautiful songs it is always the male who does so.
  6. In those animals where one sex fights over possession of the other, it is nearly always the males who fight.
  7. In those animals where one sex has more promiscuous tendencies than the other, it is nearly always the males.
  8. In those animals where one sex is fussier about avoiding miscegenation, it is usually the females.
  9. In those animals where one sex tries to force the other into copulation, it is nearly always the males who do the forcing.
  10. When one sex guards the other against copulation with others, it is nearly always the males that guard females.
  11. In those animals where one sex is gathered into a harem, it is nearly always the females.
  12. Polygyny is far more common than polyandry.
  13. When one sex tends to die younger than the other, it is usually the males.
  14. Where one sex is larger than the other it is usually the males.

Notice all the qualifiers? In this particular clade it works this way, “usually,” “nearly always,” “more common,” etc., etc., etc. Not so universal, then, is it, when even your best examples have to be padded with exceptions. Do polyandrous or monogamous species not exhibit anisogamy? If a female exhibits bright colours, is she no longer a true female (conversely, are drag queens the most female of us all)? If males of a species incubate eggs, are they all faggoty cucks, not deserving to be called male? It seems to me that anisogamy does not and cannot explain all of the complexity of sex. As his own examples show, sex is a diverse phenomenon that you can’t just sweep into one catch-all bin.

I would also note a fallacious sleight of hand: he starts by complaining about a definition of “woman” that allows for women having a penis, and then hinges his entire argument on gametes. Men and women are more than a pile of gametes! There’s a vast body of cultural baggage associated with the human categories of man and woman, and you don’t get to jettison them all as inconvenient to your claim…and similarly, you can’t pretend that all those ethological variations in the sexes of non-human species are unimportant. I know that Richard is exercising his well known penchant for extreme reductionism, but sometimes that just breaks and produces nonsensical visions that do not reflect biological reality at all.

An evolutionary biologist ought to embrace variation and diversity rather than discarding it. That only harms the individuals who are part of the normal range of variation, but don’t belong to the typical median — and this is particularly problematic when you’re dealing with a species that has exploded the range of cultural, phenotypic variation, as humans have done. We’re not penguins or hyenas or ticks, you know. Why ignore all the diversity within a species notorious for its behavioral flexibility?

Have your genes been pacified?

A reader sent me a request to help him debunk an evolutionary psychology paper. It’s easy: it’s evolutionary psychology, which ought to be sufficient, but also it’s by Henry Harpending, notorious white nationalist and spewer of scientific racism nonsense.

To be fair, I’ll give you a chance to read the paper and judge for yourself: Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification. The premise is that the operation of the death penalty culled out some mysterious genes that gave Western people a propensity for violence, so that nowadays white people are nicer and more civilized. Our violent genes have been “pacified”. I tried looking up this concept of “genetic pacification” in the scientific literature — it seems to be a term of art used only by evolutionary psychologists, without any quantifiable definition. This paper claims to try, though.

Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man’s right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.

You will not be surprised to learn that there is absolutely no data presented anywhere in the paper. The authors cite a purported correlation between historical endorsement of the death penalty and a decline in the homicide rate, while ignoring all the other complex social changes that were going on over the same period of time, a typical reductionist strategem. The paper fails to provide any evidence that criminality is heritable, but just assumes that it is.

What the authors pretend is evidence is a model they have built, but they don’t report any details about how the model works, and report very few quantitative conclusions from it…which are pointless anyway since they don’t explain how they derived them. What the do tell us about the model makes it laughable, though. Here are the assumptions they’re working from, in addition to their assumption that crime is caused by genes:

1.The death penalty was the only selection pressure acting against personal violence;

2.Without the death penalty, condemned men would have each killed only one person on average over a normal lifetime;
and
3.Condemned men had no offspring at the time of execution.

I think we can dismiss their whole model out of hand, based on the obvious falsity of all three of those assumptions.

At least the authors didn’t feel any need to make the implicit conclusion explicit — that white westerners are genetically more civilized than all those other people in the world.

The journal Intelligence really needs to change its name

That’s a journal I would never trust — after all, they were responsible for publishing Richard Lynn’s hacky paper on the IQ of nations. Now here’s another example of a terrible racist paper from it. It’s an evolutionary psychology paper by Kanazawa, a terrible combination that ought not to ever pass peer review.

On the basis of his theory of the evolution of intelligence (Kanazawa, 2004), Kanazawa (2008) proposed that, during their evolutionary travels away from the relatively stable and hence predictable environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA; i.e., the African savanna of the late Pleistocene), the ancestors of Eurasians encountered evolutionarily novel environments that selected for higher intelligence. Therefore, Kanazawa (2008) predicted higher average IQ scores in countries located farther away from the EEA. Kanazawa (2008) tested this hypothesis against data gathered by Lynn and Vanhanen (2006), who estimated so-called “national IQ-scores,” i.e., the average IQ of the inhabitants of nations in terms of western norms. Kanazawa (2008) found a significant negative correlation between countries’ national IQs and their distance from three geographic locations in and around sub-Saharan Africa.

This is from a paper analyzing the problems of peer review, using Kanazawa’s paper as a case study. That evo-psych paper flew through peer review, with reviewers missing a number of deep problems.

We point to a number of indisputable issues that should have precluded publication of the paper as constituted at the time of review. First, Kanazawa’s (2008) computations of geographic distance used Pythagoras’ theorem and so the paper assumed that the earth is flat (Gelade, 2008). Second, these computations imply that ancestors of indigenous populations of, say, South America traveled direct routes across the Atlantic rather than via Eurasia and the Bering Strait. This assumption contradicts the received view on evolutionary population genetics and the main theme of the book (Oppenheimer, 2004) that was cited by Kanazawa (2008) in support of the Out-of-Africa theory. Third, the study is based on the assumption that the IQ of current-day Australians, North Americans, and South Americans is representative of that of the genetically unrelated indigenous populations that inhabited these continents 10,000 years ago (Wicherts et al., 2010b). In related work by others who share Kanazawa’s (2008) views on the nature of race differences in IQ, the latter issue was dealt with by excluding countries with predominantly non-indigenous populations (Templer and Arikawa, 2006). Thus, although Wicherts et al. (2010b) raised additional issues that may the topic of debate (see below), these three problems are beyond dispute.

I am amused that Kanazawa’s methodology assumed that the Earth is flat and that all peoples ignored geographical obstacles, like mountains and oceans, to make a beeline to their modern location. I am horrified that anyone would use Lynn’s deeply racist and wrong paper to make any estimates of a population’s intelligence. I reject the whole notion of IQ as a useful measure of intelligence in the first place.

The authors propose some changes towards a more open peer review process, which sound good to me. My simpler solution is to simply throw out the whole goddamn journal of Intelligence, along with anyone who publishes in it.

Speaking of flat earth follies, I see that YouTube is in a tizzy because someone is doing something called “The Final Experiment” — a group of people are flying to Antarctica to witness the fact that there is a period where the sun never sets, which ought to be impossible if Antarctica is actually a ring of land surrounding the whole planet. It’s ridiculous. No, flat earthers will find a new excuse and will not be persuaded by a “final” experiment — it’s not as if they reached their beliefs by experiment and reason in the first place, or as if all the other evidence that the earth is roughly spherical were insufficient.

Can you imagine someone proposing a “final experiment” to “prove” that life on earth evolved? I can’t. I know the idiots who are creationists far too well to think that.

Reading the Daily Mail is not how to do research

Potholer54 has a new video, in which he explains the error of all those people who say “do your own research,” a phrase so heavily abused by conspiracy theorists and cranks that it has lost much of its meaning. To me, “do your own research” means digging heavily into the background science and reading the journals; to them, it seems to mean finding a Daily Mail headline that fits their preconceptions and running with it.

It’s like he’s talking about me, a little bit. When I got into arachnology 6 or 7 years ago, I was a near total n00b — I could apply what I knew about developmental biology and evolution to them, but I couldn’t just catch a spider in my garage and claim to now be an expert on spiders. I have read so many books and papers on them, in addition to continuing to chase spiders all over the countryside, but I feel like I’ve just scratched the surface. I think real scientists have to approach any field with a sense of humility, even if they’ve been working on it for decades.

What really amused me, though, what that this was the latest comment on the video, at the very top of the page.

too bad everyone has randomly decided that human minds aren’t subject to evolution. there might be an answer in evolutionary psychology as to why an animal with nothing but sapience to defend itself has to decide it knows what it’s doing pretty early on in a novel situation if it wants to survive… but of course we all know that’s bunk, right? humans didn’t evolve. we’re special snowflakes. god’s dandruff

What a lovely example of a bad scientific argument! I’m pretty sure that potholer54 understands that humans, and human brains, are the product of evolution, and sarcastically suggesting that he has overlooked an explanation that every right-thinking evolutionary psychologist has deduced is a serious error of comprehension. It is a classic example of evo-psych argumentation, though — I have been told many times that because I find evo-psych to be facile, superficial, and a swamp of bogus reasoning that I must be a creationist.

To be fair, though, not all the people who were offended by the video are incapable of following a simple train of thought. For example, this person at least got the gist of what was said:

Does insulting the “do your own research” group have a positive effect on anyone?
What’s the purpose of this video? Genuine question.

Yes, it was a criticism of the “do your own research” group. Very good! Sirtra understood something.

It was not about insulting them, though. It was explaining that they don’t know what they’re talking about, that they’re pursuing information in a wrong and misleading way, and that maybe “doing your own research” ought to involve cracking open an introductory textbook and actually studying the basics of the topic first, and understanding how the authorities in a field derive their conclusions. The purpose is to explain how to do research properly.

Like how zEropoint68 could benefit from knowing the basics of evolutionary biology before explaining tendentiously what evolutionary biologists believe about the human brain.