Lol, so true!

I prefer Macs, UNIX, Linux, etc. to Windows. And I agree that Deepak Chopra is an idiot. But Windows users have an easy retort to "Deepak Chopra uses a PC." And theirs too is only five words:

Satoshi Kanazawa uses a Mac.

It seems we're at a douche bag stalemate. So back to the drawing board.

you choose to act as a apologist for a man that, according to you, apparently lacks the integrity to honor his martial commitment and then choose to malign a renowned Medical Doctor who has eased the suffering of so many. (My person knowledge comes from my friend's mother who was under Dr. Chopra's care while suffering from terminal cancer. His spiritual teaching did a great deal to calm her.)

Of course, I guess the fact that you are a fanboy explains this seeming paradox. iPeoples' likes/dislikes seem completely divorced from logic. If Jobs defecated in a baggie, you people would pay $500 for iPoop!

Happy New Year!

As usual, one hardly knows where to begin... How 'bout with this: "Better products tend to have better commercials." That's funny, cause it's so meaningless. Is Coke a great product? Only if you define it in terms of a money-making entity, as opposed to nutrition, health, environment, and so on. How about the NAZIs? Cool uniforms. They put on a hell of a show. Great product, fascism? Hell, Karl Rove was the master of selling his "product:" G.W. Bush. Cowboy man of the people. Great product? Oh yeah.

You state Tony Parker would have married Eva Longoria if she were a receptionist instead of a movie star as long as she looked like she does. How do you KNOW?? Perhaps he wants a woman who can support herself, has interesting friends and a cool job with many perks he can take advantage of as well. You are so totally sexist under the guise of evolutionary psychology.

Since i"m a die hard Mac user, I have to agree with your ending thoughts about Apple and their advertising, they do really need to shake it up and mentioning some of the less like people who use pc's might be interesting to see, at least to us mac user's. I thought you views on Parker and Longoria were probably right on target as well but how sad for them as well as the young girls watching them, who want to be princesses and think that marrying a pro will give them that.

Apple is as proprietary as Microsoft. Keeping knowledge secret is the anathema of science. Free and Open source operating systems like GNU/Linux, BSD, Haiku and others are much more inline with how science works.

Since you're an evolutionary psychologist, imagine if Darwin had kept his theory of evolution by means of natural selection a secret (yes, others were working on this too, but let's just set that aside for now). Medicine, psychology, biology, even computer science wouldn't be what they are today.

That both Microsoft and Apple keep their code secret is like large drug companies not sharing their research, sure it might benefit a few, but the benefits of sharing such knowledge out weigh the benefits of large profits. This isn't science, at least not the type that any decent scientist promotes.

Chopra is a terrible charlatan though, and anyone that values knowledge and truth should be speaking out against such people, and if you really care, showing people how to be skeptical, open to evidence though, and willing to be critical.

"The woo-meister supreme returns, and he's brought his friends"
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/01/the_woomeister_supreme_returns...

Aren't you a tad worried about being sued for announcing that based on your theory, the guy is cheating on her?

(Of course, if he is, I hope someone gives her my phone number.)

That would be a complete loser of a campaign. In my (limited) experience, mac users are more likely to support new age hipster bullshit like Chopra, whereas rationalists who despise con artists like Chopra are more likely to use windows or linux.

It is particularly hard to know where to begin on such a blog. First, although it is statistically likely that a male in Parker's position cheats, it is by no means valid to conclude that Parker himself is a cheater. This is what logicians refer to as the ecological fallacy. That is taking statistical data about a certain group of individuals and attempting to draw inferences about a particular individual within that group. We don't know enough about Parker to engage in anything bu lay-person speculation. The fact that Kanazawa acts like his "scientific" knowledge gives him particular insight into the relationship of Parker and Longoria is humorous. I am quite confident my wife and her mother would say the exact same thing about their state of affairs. Once again, this is not to say that the speculation is true or false, just that it is entirely outside the realm of science per se.

Next Kanazawa, true to his simple minded thinking, asserts that everything Parker does he does to get laid. This is a patently absurd confusion between proximate and ultimate levels of explanation. On the proximate level, Parker plays basketball for the love of competition and etc. Kanazawa certainly knows this, but deliberately corse and provacative, for no apparent reason. Furthermore, even on an ultimate (or distal) level, males are motivated by more than getting laid. To say such things is an incredible reification which makes no sense. We could say men do everything they do to increase inclusive fitness. For example, maybe Parker would choose to help family members rather than get laid. Since this helps propagate shared genes, he is benefiting in terms of indirect fitnes. The monolithic motivational force that Kanazawa posits is misleading at best and dead wrong in fact.

Now, for the final ad hominem attack against Chopra. It is ironic that such name calling would come from a "scientific fundamentalist." Is Kanazawa attempting to make a scientific assertion? If not, then why bother acting like a sophomore in college rather than a professor at LSE (Yes, I am engaging in name calling-but, then, I am not a scientific fundamentalist.)

It is honestly degrading to see evolutionary psychology taken to its lowest level on the blogosphere. If any serious scholar reads this, let me assure you that this line of though no more represents mainstream evolutionary psychology than Stephen Jay Gould represents mainstream evolutionary biology.

Hold on a second here. You're accusing someone you don't even know of marital infidelity, and predicting a divorce, and then you call Chopra a douchebag?

Take a look in the mirror, you trolling jerk.

-jcr