"To say that music is the product of a gene for “art-making,” naturally selected to impress potential mates—which is one of the things Pinker believes." No, it

"To say that music is the product of a gene for “art-making,” naturally selected to impress potential mates—which is one of the things Pinker believes." No, it's not. "Pinker doesn't care much for art, though." Assumes facts not in evidence. "It's O.K. to rewire people's “natural” sense of a just price or the movement of a subatomic particle, in other words, but it's a waste of time to tinker with their untutored notions of gender difference." Snidely misrepresents Pinker's thesis, which is simply that gender differences are real, are a product of evolution, and that an assumption that gender differences are social constructs is dangerous and wrong. "He argues, for example, that democracy, the rule of law, and women's reproductive freedom are all products of evolution." No, he doesn't. Would anyone? That's all in just a few lines. I don't really have the time or intestinal fortitude to give you a whole line-by-line refutation. Maybe just read what Pinker wrote, instead of this hatchet job? A final note, as I think we're both growing bored with this, but if you find accusations of logical fallacy so tedious, perhaps avoid making statements like "He's also in dangerous territory alongside assholes like Charles Murray and the Thornhills."