Satoshi Kanazawa, the loser who claims evolutionary psychology proved that black women are ugly, only to have Psychology Today sort of apologize for publishing his crap, is back to explain how smart women who voluntarily don’t have kids are actually stupid.
To explain his reasoning – for it is only reasoning, the only data involved being that which shows the smarter a woman is the less likely she is to give birth – he offers this:
If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.
What’s fun about someone like Kanazawa is that statements like this actually reveal their worldview and intelligence. So, applying at least as rigorous a scientific standard as Kanazawa himself aspires to, let’s psychoanalyze the troll. And I’m going to dig deeper than “misogynistic homophobe” because that interpretation is so obvious.
1) He ignores that evolutionary biologists can’t even decide why sex evolved at all (asexual reproduction produces far more offspring), let alone determine that the entire evolutionary “purpose” of sex is reproduction. This suggests a personality that either isn’t curious enough to keep up with its own field (perhaps seeing its work only as a way to glorify itself?) or chooses to ignore good science if it doesn’t fit his agenda (lazy thinking).
2) He ignores long-standing research indicating that same sex relationships exist in all sorts of species, and we don’t know why, but it suggests that “every single individual replicating him/herself” may not be crucial to species survival, and that sex may serve purposes other than reproduction.
3) In this worldview, homosexuality must be “truly unnatural.” The common view that homosexual relationships are inferior because they don’t normally lead to reproduction is indicative of a personality that limits itself to highly oversimplified, dualistic thinking and lacks the intellectual curiosity to uncover – or debate – nuance.
4) He doesn’t concern himself with the intelligence of men who choose not to reproduce. This is where his misogyny becomes obvious. Can you ask what is the evolutionary purpose of women who don’t reproduce without being a misogynist? Yes, in biology you can. But once you render your conclusions in such inflammatory terms as that these “smart” women are really “dumb” “losers”, it really, really begs the question of what you think of men who choose not to make babies. And your silence on that matter belies the idea that you were merely posing a legitimate question about biology, suggesting instead that you were looking for an excuse to call smart women “dumb” “losers.” And what kind of personality is most likely to resent smart women (or black women, referring to his other bit of offal)? A highly insecure man who is incapable of the high levels of critical thinking required for his position – not necessarily due to a lack of intelligence or thinking skills. Sometimes huge, bulging, painful egos cause capable brains to act quite stupid. Oh, hey, where did I just hear someone talking about smart people doing stupid things? Hmm.
It certainly is possible that Kanazawa just really hates smart women, black women and women who aren’t held back in the workplace by motherhood and so on, and is just looking for “science” to back up his bias. In fact, I think that’s really likely based on anecdotal evidence from my personal interactions with people who hold his views. But my point here is to show that even by his own scientific standards – that is, rolling theories from his personal interpretation of data – the most charitable view you can have of him is that he does not apply much intelligence to his work.