My morning is made. I have read a review of Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos in the Johannesburg Review of Booksthat savages it appropriately. I chortled through the whole dang thing. Cheered me right up, it did.

And what sort of intellectual does the Idiocracene usher forth? The kind that writes a self-help book for assholes, basically. 12 Rules for Life is a Gladwellian shotgun blast of childhood anecdotes, Bowdlerized mythology, common sense behavioural techniques, grossly undercooked philosophical concepts (Heidegger’s ideas get a proper reaming here), along with a soupçon of mystical Christianity, a dash of Eastern religious-type stuff—oh, and emoticons. (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) It’s all ready-made for the Trump era, where resentment of ‘postmodern’ campus lefties and their intersectional, Black Lives Matter, materialist tendencies have become fodder for prime-time alt-right outrage.

Every paragraph is a wonderful shellacking.

How did Peterson become such an effective Iron John bromide machine? He is a clinical psychologist, a professor of psychology, and a renaissance-style polymath, which in his case means cinching seven or eight basket-weaving disciplines together into one spectacular black hole of knowledge, a negation of the very principles of rigorous scholarship. Peterson appears to have read widely, which is to say: not deeply. Many academic bullshit merchants have done queasy work jamming thinly understood Big Concepts into stocking-stuffer books, but never have they tried to force Charles Darwin, Carl Jung, Jesus Christ, Goethe, Dante, Erich Neumann, Yeats, and literally hundreds of others into a fucking Huffington Post listicle.

Maybe I ought to just quote the whole thing?

Peterson, it should now be clear, is a crank of drunk uncle proportions. But he is also the ‘the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now’, which should not be mistaken for an exaggeration. It’s all caved in on itself, the Western world and its various satellites, in their various stages of orbit decay or escape velocity—we’re all Walter Benjamin’s ‘Angelus Novelus’, gazing at the detritus of history, blown back to the future by the force of the mess. And there’s Jordan Peterson, waiting for us with his rulebook, reminding us to eat a decent breakfast, to pull our flies up, and to refuse futzing with pronouns to accommodate the transgendered.

Nah, I’ll stop there. Go read the whole thing.

Why, you might be wondering, am I so pleased with such a brutal takedown? I’ll tell you. It’s because I made two YouTube videos, Jordan Peterson and the Lobster and PZ Replies to the Lobsterians, which means I am now inundated with comments and email from Very Serious Fanbois, and also more than a few Very Hateful Fanbois, all trying to set me straight. They sound similar to the Cultural Marxism Haters, who also send me similarly clueless tirades. They like to read my mind and tell me how they understand biology so much better than I do, thanks to Peterson’s instruction. It’s utterly nuts.

Here’s a recent example.

Peterson’s point is that through the process of sexual selection we have evolved to climb social hierarchies. The male that rises to the top has more offspring. But I guess sexual selection isn’t a thing in biology anymore. Females don’t select for the most powerful male they can get, they don’t want guys at the top of the social ladder, they prefer the stressed out poverty stricken guys at the bottom instead. Gender is a social construct now anyway, so I guess that explains why PZ Myers doesn’t “believe” in sexual selection. Maybe old PZ’s can explain why dominance hierarchies exist across species, cultures, and throughout time if they have no basis in biology?

They all have this caricature of how males acquire mates — it’s by dominating them, don’t you know — and they love to cite “sexual selection” as a singular force with a singular direction that every biologist ought to bow down before and acknowledge.

Here’s my reply to that guy.

No. That is Peterson’s CLAIM. It is unsupported by the evidence.

Of course biologists accept sexual selection: females choose mates, & vice versa.But it’s far more complex than you imagine. Define “powerful”: is it the guy who can beat up other guys, or the guy who gathers the most food, or the guy who is most helpful with children, the guy who can help her achieve her professional goals, etc.? There are multiple criteria for mate selection. You and Peterson WANT it to be a certain narrow type of behavior that is often the antithesis of what a woman might desire.

It’s not that they prefer stressed out poverty stricken guys — it’s that most people want a cooperative peer who can respect and understand their situation, the better to assist them in living the life they have. Many of us chose our partners because we like them, because we live and work together well, not because we dominate or are dominated by them.

I am so sorry you have fallen for these Peterson lies. They are a recipe for a miserable life.

So he insists on telling me again what Peterson’s point is, as if it wasn’t all laid out in its simplistic glory, and tells me I shouldn’t be reading 12 Rules for Life, I need to read his other works to savor the full force of his obscurantism.

Peterson’s point is that through the process of sexual selection we have evolved to climb hierarchies and that’s partly why they keep showing up everywhere. He’s saying that the ‘patriarchy’ is not some huge conspiracy, and that hierarchies have been around longer than humans. Males further up the hierarchy are more attractive to females. But I guess in a world where gender is a social construct this is taboo. His 12 rules for life book is an extremely cut-down and simplified version of what he’s saying, it is not intended for an academic level of analysis – his papers are. Attacking him at an academic level based on his ‘childrens’ book is like a creationist attacking biologists based on a grade 1 science book – you of all people can do better than that (and as a skeptic who’s been listening to you for years I really wish you would). If you actually want to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion (and I for one hope you do) you’d have to first dig a little deeper. Maybe you could even have an actual discussion with him, I’m pretty sure millions of people would listen to it.

Again, I replied.

I know what Peterson’s point is. You keep telling me. But it’s obvious. And it’s wrong. The hierarchy is a social construct! Try hard enough, and you can imagine them everywhere, exactly as you’re doing.

And oh, god, don’t tell me to read his academic work. I looked some of it up. I started his Maps of Meaning book. They’re WORSE. They are impenetrable gobbledygook. You think they’re brilliant because they’re so difficult, but the reason they’re so difficult is that they’re garbage.

Now I’m getting these comments outraged that I said “The hierarchy is a social construct!”, because they translate “social construct” into “imaginary, nonexistent” thanks to all the repetition of that theme in their cohort, and are trying to convince that dominance hierarchies really do exist, as if I was saying otherwise.

This is a pseudo-intellectual movement led by an ignorant guru that I would like to see collapse under the weight of its inanity, but I know from experience that that won’t happen. People still think Deepak Chopra has something to say, and they’ll be revering Peterson for decades to come, in exactly the same way.

I was reading Gretchen Koch’s review of the American Atheist convention in Oklahoma city (net positive), and she links to a Christian pastor’s review of the same (not positive at all). Koch’s article is a thoughtful balance of concerns about atheism’s problems and the good aspects of community.

The Christian review is a collection of familiar tropes. Atheism is just like a religion because they have speakers and try to persuade people that they’re right! Welcome to the real world, guy: then auto dealers and the society for developmental biology are religions, because they have meetings with speakers and argue.

Then he scorns the attendance.

The organizers were impressed with the fact that 850 people attended the conference. But I have attended a dozen church conferences in the past year that have more people than that. In some ways, I think the church has little to worry about from such a small, insignificant organization, but in other ways, I am very concerned because their goal is nothing short of transforming our entire nation from one with Christian foundations to a completely secular nation where the religious would be forced to keep their beliefs confined to the inside of their homes.

This is correct. 850 people is not that many; the Society for Neuroscience annual event draws in 20,000+ attendees, just to put it in perspective. Atheism is a minority view, so don’t be surprised when events are smaller than some rally filmed by Leni Riefenstahl. But it doesn’t mean that they can’t be influential, especially when the majority view is becoming increasingly repellent. Donald Trump’s support by evangelical Christians does so much hard work for us.

Stop me if you’ve heard this canard before.

The reason most people are atheists is because they want to have the freedom to sin. At the atheist conference I saw people promoting abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, premarital sex, and polyamory. The most common theme at the conference was, “There is no god” but the second most common theme was, “I want to have sex unhindered by religious morality.”

The theme is actually more like “Consenting adults ought to be free to find happiness in their own way,” but OK, yes, we do want to get rid of narrow, dogmatic religious morality that too often disregards the happiness and consent of its citizens to meddle in personal matters.

How about this oldie?

The atheists also celebrate homosexuality which is weird because if evolution is true as atheists believe then the gene for homosexuality should disappear within a few generations.

If god is true then why haven’t all the gay people been on the receiving end of a thunderbolt, huh? My answer to his fallacy is that, like all behaviors, there are biological compromises. Fine-tune the specificity of human mate preferences too much, and you get a population that doesn’t want to breed with anyone. And, since we’re a social species, maybe loving people of your own sex is just fine and even advantageous in building a community.

And then…

American Atheists are mad about the recent school shootings, but their founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair is the one responsible for taking prayer out of schools. When an objective moral standard is removed from education and prayer to Almighty God is forbidden in the classroom, then lawless behavior is the inevitable result. Who is responsible for school shootings? I think the American Atheists are.

Takes your breath away, doesn’t it? Taking prayer out of schools has nothing to do with school shootings; and it’s not true that prayer has been removed, because anyone can still pray all they want in school, you just can’t have an authority dictating to you how and to whom you must pray. This pastor is some kind of generic Protestant. I wonder how he’d feel if a Catholic were to decide on the prayers to be dictated in the schools, or even more horrifying to him, a Muslim? Separation of church and state has been a blessing that allows every weird sect to flourish in this country, including his profitable ministry.

But to blame atheism for the shootings? Over the top. Fuck you, Daniel King.

Hello, Calgary. I hear you’re having a holistic medicine convention with a famous speaker.

David Stephan is listed as one of the presenters for the “Body Soul & Spirit Expo,” which bills itself as a “holistic lifestyle show” that showcases products, services and resources for “growth, wholeness and self-understanding.”

According to the show’s website, Stephan will speak about how to achieve brain and thyroid health during a session on Friday. He runs a natural supplement business called Truehope Nutritional Support.

He’s being brought in as an expert on brain health? But…but…

In 2016, Stephan and his wife were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their 19-month-old son Ezekiel. During the trial, the court heard the couple tried to treat their son’s bacterial meningitis with natural remedies such as, garlic, onion and horseradish instead of taking him to a doctor. Ezekiel died in 2012.

Stephan was sentenced to four months in prison and his wife was given three months of house arrest.

Dang. When trying to decide which of my three kids to murder in order to get these speaking gigs, should I ask for volunteers, or just have them draw straws?

I have my disagreements with Chris Stedman — he’s kind of representing the ooey-gooey side of atheism, while I’m typically on the harsh, strongly worded side (I know, you’re surprised). So, goddamn it, I hate it when I have to admit that he’s right, and that my side has been too accommodating to the fanatically godless side, which just luuurves ’em some alt-righties.

I’m still an activist, but after nearly a decade of active participation in online atheism (a loose community of forums, blogs, YouTube channels, and fandoms of figures like evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and writer Sam Harris), I mostly stepped away from the online side of atheism a few years ago. One of the biggest reasons for this was my growing concern over its failure to adequately address some of its darker currents—such as overt sexism, racism, and anti-Muslim bias.

I’ve been backing away myself, and I was smack in the middle of online atheism for years. It’s for the same reasons.

By neglecting to address its darker currents, online atheism has perhaps unknowingly planted the seeds for the alt-right’s harvest. Three years ago Reddit’s atheism subforum, perhaps the largest community of atheists on the internet, was found to be the website’s third most bigoted—meaning not just tolerant of overt displays of bigotry, but actively supportive of them. Last year, the Daily Beast revealed that the study’s most bigoted Reddit subforum, the Red Pill, was founded by Robert Fisher, a Republican state lawmaker who is also an atheist.

The problem is more widespread than figures like Spencer and Fisher, too. While championing liberal views on some issues, many of atheism’s most prominent advocates—the majority of whom are, like me, cisgender white men—have expressed troubling sentiments that align with views held by the alt-right and faced little to no consequences.

Last year Sam Harris hosted Charles Murray—who has famously argued that black people are genetically predisposed to lower IQs than whites—on his immensely popular podcast, calling Murray a victim of “a politically correct moral panic.” Harris has in the past called for profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim.” (When I challenged him on this, he suggested I “wear a t-shirt stating ‘There is no God and I am Gay’ in Islamic countries and report back on [my] experiences.”) Outspoken atheist Bill Maher rightly came under fire last summer for using racist language on air. He has also argued that “most Muslim people in the world do condone violence,” told “transgendered” [ sic] people to be quiet, and gave alt-right darling Milo Yiannopoulos a sympathetic interview on his HBO show. Lawrence Krauss, a popular skeptic who now faces numerous sexual harassment allegations, has criticized the #MeToo movement. Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist in the world, has mocked women for speaking out about experiences of sexual harassment, shared a video ridiculing feminists, and railed against “SJWs” (short for “social justice warriors,” a derisive term for social justice activists). Look beyond atheism’s biggest names and you will find vocal Trump supporters like author Robert M. Price and immensely popular atheist YouTubers with more than a million subscribers. Their views are likely shared by more atheists than many would like to admit.

Yeah, what good is atheism as a philosophy if it can’t even find within itself a reason to condemn Nazis, bombing campaigns against Muslim countries, and discrimination and harassment against women? I know that several of the big organizations, like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists, are quite clear that they are pro-feminism and anti-Nazi, but it seems like the base have been drifting away to the siren song of the anti-Muslim, racist right (or, as they prefer to call themselves to the point that the word has lost all meaning “centrists”).

Trav Mamone has identified one of the deeper problems in the atheist movement.

One thing I suggest is getting rid of the concept of the atheist celebrity. By declaring just a handful of prominent atheist activists to be the movement’s leaders, it creates a hierarchal system where the same arguments against God get repeated ad nauseam, and newer ideas about how to put humanist values into action are ignored. Everyone should be a leader in the atheist movement, whether that person is fighting for church and state separation in a small town in Pennsylvania or creating a community for liberal atheists living in the Bible Belt. Martin Luther King once said, “You don’t have to know the theory of relativity in order serve.”

There’s always got to be a figurehead, apparently — even MLK has become one. I agree wholeheartedly that we have to get out of that stupid “four horsemen” mindset and recognize that an effective movement has ten thousand leaders, and no one is just a follower, and we’re always ready to criticize, and listen to criticism. Another of our problems is that our “leaders” have been remarkably thin-skinned and unwilling to tolerate disagreement, let alone act on it to change course. We need to be more adaptable.

Until we achieve that kind of breadth and resilience, though, clearly we need to make Trav the King of Atheism. All bow down and worship their wise words.

It’s like they can’t believe just one wacky thing, they have to express saturated stupidity.

Remember when you were kids, and people would prank each other with mild little jokes, and it was OK at first, and then it would get a bit tiring as the day went on, and as you got older the tiring phase would come earlier and earlier in the day? Well, I’m 61 goddamn years old, and the tired bit started at 12:01 am, like it does every day.

But that isn’t all. The fools have taken over, 365 days a year. Have you heard of Q/Anon? Here’s the inside dope.

There is a high-ranking official in the government calling themself Q, who is privy to dramatic state secrets that they have chosen to reveal on 4chan. Q claims the country is actually run by a gigantic pedophile ring (this is an echo of PizzaGate) fronted by the Democrat party, and that Donald Trump is a super-genius who has been playing 13-dimensional chess with everyone. Robert Mueller isn’t actually investigating Trump; that’s a ploy to distract everyone, while Mueller is actually preparing surprise indictments against Obama and the Clintons, basically overthrowing all of the Democrats and vindicating himself while saving the entire country from child-traffickers. Any day now it’s going to happen. Obama and Hillary will be in jail or kicking from a gibbet s o o n. It’s a weird old scam built on obscure, cryptic fragments of text delivered to a receptive audience that built one of the scummiest citadels of hate and lunacy on the internet, touted by conspiracy theorists like Roseanne Barr and led by rat-fucking cockroaches like Jerome Corsi.

If you’re one of those pitiful poseurs who think some goofy blog post or twitter comment or facebook meme is the high-larious highlight of your wit and humor, give up. Q/Anon has outpunked us all. There’s no further point to even trying.

I suggest we repeal April Fools altogether. Or maybe recast it as November Fools and schedule it for the day after our elections, cause we all sure got screwed on that date in 2016.

Usually, around this time of year, I get a battery of snickering Christians giggling over an old joke in my email: Did you know that the official atheist holiday is April Fools Day?

Those jokes all seem to have dried up this year. I wonder why?

Oh, well, they’ll probably back at it next year.

Racist pseudoscience keeps creeping back into the culture, and I like the point made in this article by Gavin Evans that one mechanism is by the alliance of the pseudoscience of race with the pseudoscience of heritable intelligence, both “slippery concepts” that allow an amazing amount of sloppiness in which to inject one’s biases. You know you’re dealing with a charlatan when they start making very specific claims about the genetics of intelligence in humans, something that has been extraordinarily difficult to measure and test, in correlations with the genetics of race, a concept that is poorly defined. They’re trying to build a skyscraper when the only materials they have to hand are buckets of watery jello and porridge — it turns out they don’t make steel when combined.

My personal views are that populations have structure, and there are rivers of genes that run through different lineages, but that the structures don’t align well with the exclusionary, constructed concept of race. Those genetic patterns are interesting and important, but their study is ruined by the know-nothing yahoos, like Charles Murray, who keep intruding and trying to warp the data to fit their preconceptions about how the human social order ought to be, which somehow is always conditioned by archaic and crude ideas about the inferiority of the Other. There is no higher or lower, there is only difference.

As for intelligence, the entire point of the human brain is plasticity and sensitivity to experience and novelty. There is no such thing as high intelligence — but there is such a thing as high adaptability. Since intelligence is actually a response to the environment, it’s disappointing and absurd that there are actually scientists arguing for some mysterious hard-wiring of the brain for some difficult to describe ability like “performance on IQ tests”. Don’t they realize that that’s the antithesis of what human intelligence is? You have a property that is all about interacting with complex environmental challenges in diverse ways, and you think you can capture it in a simple, constant parameter, one that doesn’t include the environment? Weird.

Yet people still push this contrary notion. Charles Murray is one; so is Steven Pinker; among the worst and clumsiest promoters of racial IQ science is Sam Harris, whose career has been all about defining boundaries between people, and making evasive suggestions about what ought to be done with the Other. When Harris brought on Murray for an interview, this is how he introduced him:

People don’t want to hear that a person’s intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person’s intelligence even in childhood. It’s not that the environment doesn’t matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don’t want to hear this. And they certainly don’t want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Please, please, please…someone define this curious property that Harris has labeled “intelligence” which doesn’t change and which is hardly at all malleable, even in childhood. Anyone who has had a child knows that their minds grow and change over time — I see it even in the 18 year olds who enter college and then leave 4 years later with often great changes in maturity and outlook. Yet none of that is part of Harris’s understanding of “intelligence”.

We know that living in poverty, suffering trauma, lead exposure, poor schools, social isolation, abuse, and poor nutrition all affect academic performance and people’s roles in society, yet somehow none of these involve the ineffable subject of the term “intelligence”. “Intelligence” is fixed and intrinsic, with perhaps 20% that can be modified by stuff like education and experience. Or is it 50%? I don’t know. I don’t even know how you can peg it to a single number, or what it means for someone to be 20% more or less intelligent than I am.

Also, contrary to Harris’s claim that this assertions are facts unopposed by psychological science, Vox found 3 psychologists specializing in intelligence who, um, opposed his views.

This infuriated Sam Harris.

He went on a tweet rampage — apparently, showing that he is wrong, and that his opinions are not universally shared, is “defamatory”. He is very upset that once again someone has publicly pointed out that his statements sure sound awfully racist, and that what was published against him is “nothing less the total destruction of a person’s reputation for the crime of honestly discussing scientific data”. He made a suggestion that Ezra Klein, editor of Vox, should engage with him in his podcast, and published the emails that bounced back and forth between the two as they negotiated.

It’s a remarkable exchange. You should read it. Also remarkable is that Harris willingly posted it, thinking it would demonstrate the rightness of his position, when all anyone can see is that Klein is patient and friendly, while Harris is increasingly testy and self-righteous. Harris challenges Klein to do a podcast, he accepts, and then there’s this long weird gripe about how he was defamed, yet he doesn’t want to discuss this subject with qualified psychologists (which Klein suggests), but only with Klein — and then he doesn’t want to discuss the claims about race and science he obligingly approved of in his discussion with Murray, because, he says, it would be “boring” to his listeners.

This “boring” dismissal seems to be routine with Harris when he senses the argument isn’t going his way. He did the same thing with Omer Aziz, recording a 4 hour session and then deciding not to air it, because it was “boring”.

He also likes to pull this stunt when he meets someone who dismisses him of posting the email exchanges between them with this strange notion that somehow they redeem him — he did this when Noam Chomsky refused to debate him. It’s a curious phenomenon, because he seems to think his prickly whining makes him look like a good guy, but all it really does is reveal him as a pompous ass. But he might be wise in doing it, because there are always a mob of ardent fanboys who afterwards reinforce Harris’s opinion of himself.

Ezra Klein has responded by pointing out how Harris pandered to Murray, and rejecting the claim that psychological scientists even have the ability to assess an intrinsic component to IQ.

International evidence suggests oppression, discrimination, and societal resentment lowers group IQs. As the New York University philosopher of neuroscience Ned Block has written, quoting the work of anthropologist John Ogbu, oppression has a clear effect on marginalized groups globally. “Where IQ tests have been given, ‘the children of these caste-like minorities score about 10-15 points … lower than dominant group children,’” he writes.

Block’s point, and this is important, is not that IQ isn’t heritable, or even that it’s impossible to imagine it differing among groups. It’s that it’s impossible to look at the cruel and insane experiment America has run on its black residents and say anything useful about genetic differences in intelligence.

He makes a measured response. It’s a solid article that politely rips Harris’s views strongly. It should win over rational people, which doesn’t include the blinkered goons who love Sam Harris no matter what he says.

But that doesn’t matter. Sam Harris has won over 4chan.

St Paul has a Scientology center. I’ve seen it. It always looks kind of…dead, not exactly a thriving enterprise. I guess it really is fading, because here’s an article on our local Scientology scene, and it includes what I thought were really useful numbers.

A scientologist (now an ex-scientologist) was sent here several years ago to recruit and shore up the membership. The church claims to the public that there are 10,000 active scientologists in this region. Internally they have a different story.

The church gave him a list of “950 people who were supposedly Scientologists” in a five-state region that included the Dakotas, Iowa, and Wisconsin. His task was to make sure they were still involved. If they weren’t, he would work to regain them.

Shelton soon found that most had barely any connection at all. One, who was listed as a trained auditor, had merely bought a copy of Dianetics at a flea market once.

“That’s how goofy the church’s records are,” Shelton says.

In the end, he could find only 100-150 legitimate members in the entire five-state area.

Welp, that looks like one religion that might just die out in my children’s lifetime. Now we just have to finish off all the others.

I guess I’m going to be attending Secular Women Work this August! Will I see you there?