(0 comments)I am really starting to enjoy the bountiful cornucopia of blog posts detailing what an overly excitable, fact-challenged fraud Megan McArdle is constantly proving herself to be.
Here’s McMegan getting really worked up about an author’s comparison of humans to bonobos:
“For example, like a lot of evolutionary biology critiques, this one leans heavily on bonobos (at least so far). Here’s the thing: humans aren’t like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we’re not like bonobos. There’s no way observed human societies grew out of a species organized along the lines of a bonobo tribe.” (emphasis in original)Here’s the author’s retort:
Got that? Humans aren’t like bonobos because we’re not like bonobos. No way! So there! Case closed.How anyone continues to take McMegan seriously is beyond me.In addition to this somewhat embarassing “reasoning,” it’s pretty clear Ms. McArdle hasn’t read even the first half of the book very closely. Pages 77 and 78 contain a table listing some of the major similarities between humans and bonobos, many of them unique to these two species. Hard to imagine how she managed to miss that. In the discussion of her article, she flatly states that chimps are genetically more closely related to humans than bonobos are, which is not only just plain wrong, it’s something we explain very early in the book (along with a graph, no less, on p. 62).
Agree with our thesis or disagree with it, nobody who knows anything about primatology would argue that chimps are genetically closer to us than bonobos are (they’re equidistant) or that humans and bonobos don’t have a great deal in common—particularly in terms of our sexual behavior and anatomy. (The table appears below.)
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Official Gingrich-Cain 2012 response to Rick Santorum’s homophobia: “Rick, Rick, Rick. Don’t you know that the anti-gay bigotry only carries water if you have a few failed straight marriages under your belt?” Follow all their other words of wisdom here. (0 comments)Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape
Here’s Grandpa Fustypants on rape and abortion:“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
via (4 comments)Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
Yes, she's a true moron. I remember taking a course on the evolution of human sexuality as an undergrad in the '90s and even back then there was a boat load of studies proving both the genetic and socio-sexual similarities between humans and bonobos. This is like college freshman science level stuff and apparently it's all too far over her head.
So a finance and economics editor blogs a silly argument about a scientific issue outside their area of expertise, and this is evidence of a general factual challenge and being a true moron. Okay then.
Yep. Journalists be warned — you will be called morons by bloggers and commenters if you write argumentative shit you know nothing about and get slapped down by experts and laymen alike. Tremble in fear (or try to do some research first).
Interesting--as a layman, I seem to have left my name-calling and personal insults back in the eighth grade. I would say "Stamp and Splutter; Scream and Shout and Whine and Mutter" better describes such a childish response.
Yep. I'm sure the blogosphere is quaking in fear over your juvenile insults. That'll show 'em.
lol. i sincerely doubt that anyone quakes in their boots over what I have to say :).
i would actually point out that she didn't just make a silly argument, she also made poorly informed statements of fact that were categorically incorrect (e.g., "she flatly states that chimps are genetically more closely related to humans than bonobos are, which is not only just plain wrong, it's something we explain very early in the book (along with a graph, no less, on p. 62)."), which is something that she has been caught doing time and time again over the last few months.
Seriously, I wonder why FreeIX wants to defend her since McArdle's hackishness is practically a trending term on Twitter by now. As much as I'd love to watch Library Grape begin that snowball rolling, I'm afraid we are very late to the party. Also, why is it that when people don't want to argue facts they quickly revert to manners? I'll happily retract "moron" for the much more apt, " lazy, incurious hack." Apologies all around.
there's nothing wrong with name calling when its warranted. it is very interesting that people automatically leap to manners when they can't defend the BS being called out.
Over the last few months? McArdle's writing and journalism skills have *always* been this awful. It's absolutely baffling that she continues to get paid for her terrible output.
good point. i should amend what i said to reflect the fact that i've only been paying much attention for the last few months. it truly is amazing that (a) a single mild transgression by a progressive voice is enough for a scorched earth purge, whereas (b) a conservative/libertarian voice can do pretty much anything under the sun short of face-raping a 9-year-old on national television and not be held to account.
Hmm. I suppose you have examples of (a) and (b)?
My understanding of this phenom is that progressives commentators are generally held to a higher standard than conservative ones because they put more emphasis on being reality-based. Conservatives do more ideological policing and throwing red meat--with facts being of secondary concern.
But I don't lump actual libertarians in with the conservative crowd. I think libertarians are even better than progressives at getting their facts right, as we're not economic populists and don't have an incurious electoral base to rile up. So I see us as reality-based elitists in multiple spheres: personal, economic, and security. But obviously I have my own bias in this respect.
I know progressive bloggers have made a cottage industry out of villainizing Megan, and your posts are typical enough of this tack. For good or ill she's in some respects the most high profile libertarian blogger with her perch at the Atlantic next to Andrew Sullivan. So I take all this hoopla for what it's worth--which isn't much. I find Megan to be a generally insightful commentator on the issues she's knowledgeable about: finance, economics, and DC politics.
But in any case, making an uninformed argument about evolutionary biology bears not at all on the rest of her commentary. I'm sure I've made plenty of similar blunders myself in the fields I'm not an expert him (which includes most of the stuff I blog about). But I'm pretty confident this doesn't mean I love to "Stamp and Splutter; Scream and Shout and Whine and Mutter", that I'm a true moron, or an incurious hack.
hmm, Gherald does indeed seem to enjoy the fine art of "Stamp and Splutter; Scream and Shout and Whine and Mutter" :). But with always MUCH more factual basis than McMegan