Chris, my email address works. Emailing should not be hard. If you find it to be hard, something may be wrong with you. Again, adjust the meds.

My career and my life in general has been nothing like a disappointment, but thank you very much for your concern. And, all of my insults were sincere. Well, toned down a bit, but accurate and heart felt.

I know the difference between disagreeing on an issue and a personal attack. I have not disagreed with you on a substantive issue because you did not present substantive claims. You came to the table with insulting babbling gibberish. That is why no one has responded to you positively or respectfully. It is not going to get any better.

The Chris Crawford breakdown is now part of the Googlosphere. I wonder how long it will take before it is added to your Wikipedia bio?

That is all, Chris. No more blog for you.

I sent that previous post to your email address so as to keep this out of public view, but your contact address is broken.

Oh, and I had nothing to do with that Wikipedia bio. My contribution was on Erasmus.

You need to go back to your computer games and your self-written and self-aggrandizing wikipedia bio. You say good bye in your last comment, but I have enough experience with obsessive neurotics such as yourself to know that you’ll be back because you can’t control yourself. And if you do post another comment, unless it is a) very very brief and b) a very sincere apology, I’ll delete it, because I really and truly want to help you keep your promise.

It might have been possible for you to actually contribute to this conversation. But you are a paranoid obsessive megalomaniac. You can get help for that, but until you do, you are too annoying to be tolerated. Until you get help for your condition, you are of no use in this conversation or anything like it.

sometimes words just speak for themselves.

Greg, I understand your desire not to get involved in a long discussion of the actual science; that’s a lot of work, and you’ve got eyeballs to attract and ads to sell. So I’m willing to walk away from this. But I think you deserve to hear my hidden agenda. I’m a fierce advocate for the intellectual independence of science, and a ferocious opponent of the tendency to inject non-scientific ideologies into scientific inquiry.

For example, I am very much opposed to the intrusion of religion into science. Creationists attempt to impose their spiritual beliefs upon science. I find that heinous, and I oppose it at every opportunity. In the same way, global warming deniers are not really arguing science; their agenda is political, not scientific, and they subordinate scientific honesty to political ideology. I oppose that just as fiercely.

This discussion is no different: you and several other people have been reluctant to get into the science itself. While you (as a group) have occasionally brought up a few scientifically worthy points, the great bulk of this discussion has been ideological rather than scientific in nature. You (the group) have made lots of grand statements without bothering to provide even a precise wording of your meaning. It is especially telling that several persons, yourself (Greg) included, have raised matters of social policy (to wit, racism) that have no bearing on the science itself. I believe that you are no different from the creationists and AGW deniers in subordinating science to your political ideology. You don’t like racism — an admirable sentiment that I share — but the difference between us is that you reject open, honest scientific inquiry because of your concerns about racism. I subordinate my personal tastes to objective truth; if science were to discover that left-handers tend to be sexual perverts, that blue-eyed people tend to have difficulties with math, or that purple-skinned people score lower on tests of social cognitive performance, I won’t scream bloody murder — I’ll shrug my shoulders and accept those tentative results. What we do about those scientific results is an entirely different matter. If society chooses to discriminate against left-handers, idolize blue-eyed people, or send purple-skinned people to death camps, that’s a political matter, not a scientific one. We shouldn’t mix science with religion, and we shouldn’t mix science with politics. Science can inform our political deliberations, but political preferences should never, ever intrude upon scientific inquiry.

I acknowledge again that there have been some attempts at scientific arguments here, but they have been brief, elliptical, secondary, or overly vague. I very much hope that someday I’ll find somebody who can offer a robust case against some specific claims of Evo Psych. But after many attempts, I am abandoning hope that I’ll find such a person here. Like Diogenes, I’ll just have to take my search elsewhere.

Best wishes, and adieu to you all.

Take your favorite topic of male promiscuity. The evo psych argument Greg is taking on here is that men are genetically predisposed to being more promiscuous than women based on human evolution over a particular period. His argument is not that some men aren’t relatively promiscuous, thus no go. His argument is that if you look at the (actual) people living under the (actual) conditions that evo psych postulates shaped modern human behavior, those specific populations are not where you find the tendency toward male promiscuity. Those conditions don’t select for male promiscuity.

Is that an argument that no males are genetically predisposed to promiscuity? No. Is it saying that no one doing any kind of evolutionary psychology has a leg to stand on? No.

It is, however, a falsification of the framework that evo psych is using to argue that male promiscuity must be genetically coded for. The same goes for other standard male/female behavior patterns that evo psych is used to justify. If you don’t find those patterns selected for under those conditions, it’s time to find a new framework.

This isn’t that hard.

I’m a busy man, Chris. Don’t give me an 1800 word comment that starts with a statement like that. It just could not possibly interest me enough to read it. I’ve spent much of the last 25 year studying this issue. Your comments do not really draw my attention, though it is possible that brief clearly worded questions posed in a civil and polite manner would.

I really did look back at your first comment thinking there might be something there. I gave you that chance. You failed then. I’m not giving you the chance this time.