The Taxpayers’ Alliance are hardly famed for their intellectual analysis of situations, but this one takes the piss-soaked biscuit.
Those who oppose tax cuts for the rich are apparently suffering from sexual jealousy because the rich people get all of the best women. I am not making this up. Here are some select quotes I could be arsed to type out from page 92 of their latest report:
The successful hunter gatherer knows better than to resist the theft and he still garners some rewards–in terms of gratitude, prestige and sexual affairs–for his success. Among hunter gatherers, even the tiniest inequality is translated into more babies.
It was the still same in early agricultural societies: the man with with the most corn or cattle had the most wives or concubines. And it is still true today: even in an age of working women, sexual continence and gender equality, the man with the most money still gets more sexual opportunities than the man with the least money. Ask them.
So no wonder we dislike inequality. No wonder we want to tax that money off a Vanderbilt before he grabs all the best women.
Who can really think that when confronted with all the middle-class benefits that flow from the taxpayer? No, at least it’s partly plain old sexual jealousy at the root.
This is actually a report that was actually commissioned and published, and I promise I haven’t just cherry-picked quotes to misrepresent their argument. It actually is that.
Now, it’s hard to begin deconstructing an argument as plainly stupid as this, so let’s all take a break to laugh until we shit ourselves. Once this is done, let’s pop on some clean pants and talk about how risibly wrong the TPA are.
The big glaring elephant in the room is that evolutionary psychology is almost entirely complete bollocks. It is largely speculation based on “these ancient people did this, and we do something similar SO WE EVOLVED IT AND IT’S NATURAL”. It is often used to justify existing inequalities, as it is being applied by the TPA.
The TPA are using the typical evolutionary psychology justification, but with a twist. They are actually more open about their lack of evidence than most evolutionary psychology papers: they suggest “asking” a rich man if he is having more sex than a poor man. I think we can all sing in chorus that the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but seeing as the TPA have decided this is sufficient evidence, I will point out that I have had sex with nine people since the beginning of May and science says that the TPA publish these reports specifically to piss me off because they’re jealous of the sheer quantity of orgasms I have.
To damn the TPA with faint praise, it’s kind of gratifying to see that at least they don’t pretend that the rich are mostly men–in fact, given the wording of the report, it would seem that all of the rich are men. It’s also nice to see that on planet TPA, gender equality exists, presumably because all the women know their place in servicing the super-rich in harems while pointing and laughing at anyone without a diamond-encrusted helicopter.
Now I think about it, the TPA exist in the same dystopian universe as Catherine Hakim.
It’s interesting to note that at no point do the TPA acknowledge that this sex-surplus of the rich might boil down to the fact that they can afford to pay for it. By evolutionary psychology standards, actually, there’s some “evidence” to suggest it’s the most generous men who get the most sex.
So, basically, the TPA have, as always, commissioned a report that is complete and utter fuckwitted bollocks, and the only saving grace is that most people will never be bothered to read through a 400-page report to read this shit.
Hat tip to Political Scrapbook for highlighting this and @MediocreDave for making sure I saw it and kicked off.
7 thoughts on “The Taxpayers’ Alliance use evolutionary psychology: apparently their opposition isn’t getting laid”
“It is largely speculation based on “these ancient people did this, and we do something similar SO WE EVOLVED IT AND IT’S NATURAL”.”
In my experience it is even worse than that. It normally comes out something like:
“We used to think that people should act like this in the 50’s so we will horribly misinterpret or even flat make up evidence to show they they did this in the past so we can show that WE EVOLVED IT AND IT’S NATURAL and use it to keep X persecuted group in their place.”
But Tories are always complaining about The Poor having too many children, which would imply that they’re having lots of sex. That kind of undermines their argument about rich people keeping all the orgasms for themselves.
I’m not surprised that the TA are into evolutionary psychology, after all classical and neo classical economics are predicated on primitive societies that never existed in order to make the unequal social relations ‘natural’.
Thanks for the post, it made me smile, especially that pant shitting escapade.
I read an Evo-psych study once that showed that girls like pink because of their “gatherer instincts” that attracted them to berries and other brightly coloured foodstuffs.
Yes, I’ve seen that. Someone should tell them pink-for-girls is less than 100 years old … on the other hand it’s more fun to point and laugh.
Having had direct dealings with the TPA, I’d be genuinely surprised if any of them have sex at all, ever.
That said, think tank salaries aren’t all that great – maybe this is some sort of wish-fullfilment policy wonk fanfic? Or a kind of of closeted, homo-erotic daydream about their masterful, ‘alpha male’ financier funders?
Fifty shades of grey with added regressive taxation…