What a strange site. It's like, the author takes all the social science research from 1997 to 2007 and just presents it a little more poorly than it was origina

What a strange site. It's like, the author takes all the social science research from 1997 to 2007 and just presents it a little more poorly than it was originally presented and editorializes it. Like, everything he writes is almost correct, but then he writes his own assumptions into it that were never in the original research - and sometimes, wrong. Wait, wait, maybe the blog itself is a joke and a play on the Dunning-Kruger effect - maybe he's aware of the fact that he's not as smart as he thinks, and he's bastardizing social science in an ironic way. Perhaps, in fact, this is the next evolution of art. That must be it. Edit: Kidding aside, most of the concepts he references are interesting, but he does a poor job of it. The biggest problem is he mixes his own examples in a blog post with actual research without differentiating between the two. So you're going to get some bad, unproven conjectures along with your pop science if you read here. If you like the general topics he's writing on though, just google the names of the concepts he covers in a post and check the top results in Google or the citations in Wikipedia - it is interesting stuff, it's just presented rather poorly on this fellow's blog.