Satoshi Kanazawa cannot think.

That this has not proven to be a handicap for someone employed by the London School of Economics is astounding and reflects poorly on them.

I found him through the stupidest, most sexist article I have read this year.

He argues:

The power of female choice becomes quite apparent in a simple thought experiment. Imagine for a moment a society where sex and mating were entirely a male choice; individuals have sex whenever and with whomever men want, not whenever and with whomever women want. What would happen in such a society? Absolutely nothing, because people would never stop having sex! There would be no civilization in such a society, because people would not do anything besides have sex. This, incidentally, is the reason why gay men never stop having sex: there are no women in their relationships to say no.

This is the the point where I immediately knew Kanazawa cannot think. 1  Does he think that gay men do not hold jobs or have careers?  That they get nothing done?  That women do not want to have sex? 2   It takes but a moment’s reflection for any thinking person to look at that paragraph after having written it.  In a room where candles are going out from lack of oxygen one should still see the contradictions and quickly delete it.

Kanazawa cemented my opinion in the next paragraph.

This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them.  There would be no civilization, no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice.

Surely he is aware that gay warriors, musicians, authors, poets, artists, scientists might be a slight rebuttal to his idea?

I no longer believe that he is aware of this.  I read another article where Kanazawa advocates killing every human being in the mideast as a solution to terrorism.  His list of articles is a grand collection of logical fallacies.

I do not approve of ad-hominem arguments. However, if  Satoshi Kanazawa makes any statement, I would be biased to think the statement is wrong.

  1. I would also guess that he does not or cannot read the news, let alone know any gay people.  How else could he have missed the great number of gay men struggling for the right to marry?   (back)
  2. Later in the article he reveals that his problem is small sample size.  Women do not want to have sex with Satoshi Kanazawa, and he generalizes from that.   (back)

But wait, there's more

13 thoughts on “Satoshi Kanazawa cannot think.

  1. Why am I not surprised that women don’t want to have sex with him? Sounds like an economist with some faulty values.

  2. Lilith, I see your assertion, but I don’t see any argument underlying it.

    Why do you agree with what he said? What makes you believe such a broad statement about your XY friends?

    I also wonder if you disagree with the internal logic flaw.
    * Gay men get sex easily.
    * Gay men do everything they do to get sex.
    Why then would gay men write poetry? Could they perhaps have some motive beyond getting more action?
    Why would women do anything?
    Reductionism like this makes you seem… reduced, and I’d hate to think that about you.

  3. Most women want to be reduced, Matt. It’s the only way we can appeal to the opposite sex. If I weren’t consistently obeying biology’s demands that I use my frame to perpetuate the human race, I would never have achieved this much.

    What I don’t get is why the same men who want to hump me all the time also want to make me carry the results of their randiness to full-term. We could be having a lot more sex if I weren’t pregnant 11 months a year.

  4. I found this guy by Googling how to be happy… and while I agree with some of his points (it is considered bad in modern society to be just a mother and not have a career and strive for what is, perhaps, masculine success) the rest of what he says is so ridiculous it defeats any of his possibly legit points. There is some truth to evolutionary psychiatry but obviously this guy is seeing psychiatry through I-am-man-hear-me-roar horse blinders. Come on. I'm a woman and I like sex a lot. I like sex a lot more than my boyfriend likes sex. I know gay men who like sex less than I do. Give me a break.

  5. I know x example of someone who doesn't act like theory y therefore theory y is 100% wrong.

    I sometimes exhibit behaviour x without any trace of motivation y so the theory that behaviour x evolved largely due to motivation y is 100% wrong.

    yeah you guys have critical thought all wrapped there…

    1. Strawman arguments are beneath you, random internet guy. Especially because you seem to have a grasp of variables and are concerned with critical thought.

      My arguments are against his very words. And not taken out of context, that's what he's really proposing. He is speaking in absolutist statements.

      Furthermore, the we aren't just talking about a few gay dudes who have done something with their lives beyond rutting in the bushes, we are talking about the vast majority of them.

      The same kind of reasoning that finds gods or spirits in everything can also find selfishness or genetic fitness in everything. That's where Occam's razor helps you pick among explanations.

      Um. I just wrote all that and then I thought maybe you are responding to HerEveryCentCounts. She is using anecdotal evidence, yes. But still, the point stands that Satoishi Kanazawa cannot think.

  6. yeah actually his argument works equally well if you substitute "all human behavior" to "the vast majority of human behavior".

  7. Satoshi Kanazawa tends to write racist and sexist driven statements. He uses spurious correlations (eg two objects that have no causal relationship). For instance, the size of a city's zoo tends to correlate with the murder rates in that given city. Just because there is a correlation does not mean that there is a cause between the two.

    1. Sorry you didn't like it. I also don't approve of strawman arguments. Why do you think this is a strawman argument? I think Satoshi is serious, I take him at his word and I think what he said jibes with the rest of his essays.
      Please, if you have a good reason I should reconsider my opinion, I'm eager to hear it. I sincerely hate to think so poorly of someone, so you would be helping me if you can show me why Satoshi Kanazawa can think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>