Pro-Polygamy.com ™

Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
image
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited

     By: Mark Henkel
Date: Sep 01, 2010
Word Count: 5000 words
Cross-Reference: Joseph Henrich, "unmarried criminals", Robert Wright


AUTHOR: Mark Henkel 
Mark Henkel is both the National Polygamy Advocate for the overall National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults and the Founder of the international TruthBearer.org organization, the non-Mormon, cross-denominational, Christian polygamy rights organization. He has been interviewed and reported by numerous major media in the United States, including FOX Business Network's "Stossel," ABC's "20/20," NBC's "TODAY Show," CourtTV (TruTV), 700 Club, Newsweek, Associated Press, Washington Times, and many more as noted at 
http://www.TruthBearer.org/media/. 
Having also done interviews with Canadian media, such as MacLean's magazine, Mark Henkel has also been the leading international voice for the overall movement. 
See www.NationalPolygamyAdvocate.com 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited 
 
 
 
. . AN EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL REPORT 
 
 
. . . . . . . . . by 
 
 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Henkel 
 
 
 
Copyright (C) 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



Joseph Henrich, from the University of British Columbia, filed a biased anti-polygamy report for a Canadian Supreme Court case considering the issue of polygamy. The report regurgitated the unproven "unmarried criminals" theory without source-attribution, used the same flawed interpretation technique which his other published academic research denounced, and contradicted established economic principles and easily available evidence in Western societies that actually indicate an under-supply of men who want to marry women.

 
 
===================================== 
===============   OUTLINE   ============== 
===================================== 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
1.   Introduction: 
        "Scholar"   Never   Thought   about   Polygamy   Before 
------------------------------------------------- 
1.1.   FOREWORD 
1.2.   HENRICH   FILED   ANTI-POLYGAMY   REPORT   TO   COURT 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------- 
2.   Discredit   #1: 
        Copied   the   "Unmarried   Criminals"   Theory 
-------------------------------------------------- 
2.1.   THE   UNFOUNDED   THEORIES   REGURGITATED 
2.2.   NOT   HENRICH'S   OWN   THEORY 
2.3.   JONATHAN   RAUCH   IN   2006 
2.4.   ROBERT   WRIGHT   ORIGINATED   THE   THEORY   IN   1994   BOOK 
2.5.   HENRICH   COPYING   RAUCH   COPYING   WRIGHT 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
3.   Discredit   #2: 
        Henrich's   Other   Research   Set   Standard 
------------------------------------------------- 
3.1.   HENRICH'S   OTHER   RESEARCH   ONE   MONTH   BEFORE 
3.2.   WESTERN   SOCIETIES   ARE   UNUSUAL   FROM   OTHER   SOCIETIES 
3.3.   CONFINE   INTERPRETATIONS   ONLY   TO   SAMPLED   POPULATIONS 
3.4.   HENRICH   DREW   THE   VERY   INFERENCE   HIS   OTHER   RESEARCH   DECRIED 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
4.   Discredit   #3: 
        Under-Supply   of   Men   Wanting   Marriage 
------------------------------------------------- 
4.1.   ECONOMICS   &   EVIDENCE   IN   WESTERN   SOCIETIES   NOT   CONSIDERED 
4.2.   NO   "IMBALANCE"   FROM   ALLOWED   MULTIPLE   GIRLFRIENDS 
4.3.   THREE   EVIDENCES   IMPACTING   WESTERN   MARRIAGE   RATIOS 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
5.   Conclusion: 
        Henrich's   Anti-Polygamy   Report   is   Discredited 
------------------------------------------------- 
5.1.   DISCREDITED   THREE   WAYS 
5.2.   CHIEF   JUSTICE   CAN   DISMISS   HENRICH'S   DISCREDITED   REPORT 
 
 
===================================== 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
1.   Introduction: 
        "Scholar"   Never   Thought   about   Polygamy   Before 
------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
1.1.   FOREWORD 
 
 
This   analysis   is   an   authoritative   response   to   an   anti-polygamy   report   filed   in   a   Court   considering   polygamy.     That   anti-polygamy   report   copied   a   known   yet   unproven   "unmarried   criminals"   theory,   used   the   same   flawed   research   technique   against   which   its   author   had   previously   academically   decried,   and   ignored   both   established   economic   principles   and   actually-applicable   evidence.     After   reading   this   analysis,   it   will   become   clear   that   the   anti-polygamy   report   has   been   wholly   discredited. 
 
 
 
1.2.   HENRICH   FILED   ANTI-POLYGAMY   REPORT   TO   COURT 
 
 
A   sensationalistic   headline   for   an   article   in   the   July   19,   2010,   issue   of   The   Vancouver   Sun,   declared,   "Polygamy   is   harmful   to   society,   scholar   finds."     The   reported   scholar   was   Joseph   Henrich,   who   had   filed   a   45-page   report   with   the   British   Columbia   Supreme   Court   in   Canada,   outlining   the   supposed   dangers   to   society   from   polygamy.     According   to   the   article,   "Henrich   is   uniquely   qualified   to   look   at   polygamy's   harm.   He's   a   member   of   the   departments   of   economics,   psychology   and   anthropology   at   the   University   of   British   Columbia   and   holds   the   Canada   Research   Chair   in   Culture,   Cognition   and   Coevolution.     But   he'd   never   really   thought   about   it   until   this   year   when   Craig   Jones   approached   him.   Jones   is   the   lead   lawyer   in   the   B.C.   government's   constitutional   reference   case,   which   will   be   heard   in   November   by   B.C.   Supreme   Court   Chief   Justice   Robert   Bauman."     Joseph   Henrich,   in   hastily   writing   a   report   for   a   topic   which   he   had   not   previously   contemplated,   actually   ended   up   fully   discrediting   his   own   report,   if   not   also   diminishing   his   academic   credibility. 
 
As   the   article   reported,   "the   studies   Henrich   cites   -   from   historical,   frontier-American   research   to   contemporary   work   done   in   countries   where   polygamy   is   legal   -   indicate   that   groups   of   unmarried   men   create   havoc."     Based   on   the   illogical   interpretation   that   such   studies   are   even   applicable   to   modern   secular   Western   societies,   Henrich   simply   repeated   an   unoriginal   sequence   of   unfounded   theories   -   each   one   propping   up   each   next   subsequent   theory   -   to   make   the   case   for   one   over-arching   "unmarried   criminals"   theory. 
 
 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------- 
2.   Discredit   #1: 
        Copied   the   "Unmarried   Criminals"   Theory 
-------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
2.1.   THE   UNFOUNDED   THEORIES   REGURGITATED 
 
 
Under   the   assumption   that   all   the   men   want   to   marry   all   the   women,   the   first   theory   supposes   that   marriage   is   a   static   "zero-sum   market,"   that,   every   time   a   woman   marries   a   man,   it   automatically   removes   the   chances   for   a   man   to   marry   a   woman.     Under   the   assumption   that   all   women   would   suddenly   want   to   be   polygamous   wives   in   a   modern   secular   Western   society,   the   second   theory   supposes   that   a   static   view   of   the   "mathematics"   of   polygamy   will   leave   40%   of   low-status   men   "unable"   to   find   a   wife.     Under   the   assumption   that   all   men   want   to   even   get   married,   the   third   theory   supposes   that   the   "deprived"   unmarried   men   will   become   violent   criminals   in   society,   even   rapists   and   murderers.     Under   the   assumption   that   static   sex-selected   population   control   through   abortion   is   equivalent   to   dynamic   marriage   choices   and   to   all   the   myriad   permutations   thereof   (e.g.,   widowhood,   divorce,   re-marriage,   etc.),   the   fourth   theory   supposes   that   the   consequences   of   forced   sex-selection   in   non-Western   societies   "proves"   the   danger   from   polygamy   of   criminals   "caused"   by   a   presumed   "imbalance"   of   men-to-women   ratios   from   polygamy. 
 
This   sequence   of   unproven   theories   forms   the   basis   for   one   over-arching   theory.     Namely,   the   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   which   supposes   that   polygamy   is   a   threat   to   society   because   it   "will"   create   murdering   and   raping   criminals   out   of   the   men   who   are   "deprived"   from   finding   a   wife   to   marry.    
 
As   cud-chewing   beasts   intentionally   vomiting   and   re-chewing   previously   eaten   food,   anti-polygamists   over   the   years   have   likewise   regurgitated   these   unproven   theories   which   provide   no   new   nourishment   to   the   debate   -   except   to   expose   their   own   deliberate   biases.   For   this   reason,   whenever   some   new   anti-polygamist   to   the   public   debate   copies   and   repeats   these   individual   theories   and   the   over-arching   "unmarried   criminals"   theory,   they   are   doing   nothing   more   than   simply   regurgitating   unproven   and   unfounded   theories   that   have   already   come   and   gone. 
 
 
 
2.2.   NOT   HENRICH'S   OWN   THEORY 
 
 
The   ideas   for   this   over-arching   theory   are   absolutely   not   Henrich's   own   creations.   Moreover,   Henrich's   report   did   not   even   cite   the   proper   attribution   to   the   original   source.     So,   this   actually   raises   the   question   of   plagiarism. 
 
Even   so,   Henrich   is   not   the   first   one   to   do   so.     In   2006,   another   anti-polygamist   with   an   intentional   bias   had   already   used   the   exact   same   sequence   of   theories   as   well   -   presenting   the   very   same   over-arching   idea   which   was   not   that   previous   writer's   own   theory   either. 
 
On   April   3,   2006,   syndicated   columnist,   Jonathan   Rauch   wrote   an   op-ed,   titled,   "One   Man,   Many   Wives,   Big   Problems   -   The   social   consequences   of   polygamy   are   bigger   than   you   think."     The   piece   mostly   formed   the   basis   for   the   identical   arguments   presented   by   Joseph   Henrich's   report   in   July,   2010.       Indeed,   reading   Rauch's   2006   op-ed   and   The   Vancouver   Sun's   2010   article   (about   Henrich's   report)   side-by-side   leaves   a   reader   with   the   thought   of   having   read   the   very   same   presentation   of   ideas   between   Rauch   and   Henrich. 
 
 
 
2.3.   JONATHAN   RAUCH   IN   2006 
 
 
Because   Rauch's   2006   op-ed   had   referenced   TruthBearer.org   as   a   polygamy   rights   organization,   the   organization's   web-site   subsequently   posted   the   following   commentary   about   both   the   op-ed   and   the   theories   it   was   regurgitating. 
 
Quote,   "Citing   a   1994   book,   titled,   ‘The   Moral   Animal:   The   New   Science   of   Evolutionary   Psychology,'   Rauch   first   quoted   the   book's   author,   Robert   Wright,   who   ‘notes   that   a   "huge   majority"   of   the   human   societies   for   which   anthropologists   have   data   have   been   polygamous.'   After   that,   though,   Rauch   then   took   a   purely   speculative   direction,   ‘using'   an   idea   that   was   also   originated   in   Wright's   book,   while   never   specifically   giving   Wright   the   attribution.   Namely,   for   the   remainder   of   the   article,   Rauch   maintained   one   of   Wright's   unproven   hypotheses,   suggesting   that   because   ‘marriage   is   a   zero-sum   market,'   de-criminalized   polygamy   ‘would'   cause   numerous   low-status   men   to   commit   crimes   because   of   some   imaginary   ‘deficiency'   of   ‘marry-able   women.'   (Rauch   also   referenced   another   book,   ‘Bare   Branches,'   about   an   excess   of   males   being   born   in   Asia   due   to   population   control   sex-selecting   abortions   -   as   if   the   consequences   of   intentionally-manipulated   population   births   somehow   compare   to   polygamy.)   Adding   irony   to   the   irrelevance,   Rauch   referred   to   ‘gay   Americans'   marrying   each   other.   In   doing   so,   he   did   not   even   realize   the   illogic.   Even   by   using   the   ‘zero-sum   market'   assumption,   men   having   same-sex   marriages   with   each   other   can   easily   be   seen   as   providing   a   ‘mathematical'   re-balance   to   any   supposed   ‘deficiency'   of   ‘marry-able   women'   for   heterosexual   men   -   if   marriage   really   was   a   ‘zero-sum   market.'" 
 
The   TruthBearer.org   organization's   web-site   continued,   "Based   upon   his   (or,   actually,   Wright's)   fallacious   premise,   Rauch   declared,   ‘polygamy   is   a   profoundly   hazardous   policy,'   thereby   justifying   the   continuation   of   big   government   social   engineering   to   disallow   polygamy   -   in   order   to   ‘protect'   society   from   ‘unmarried   criminals.'   Rauch   then   took   this   startlingly-socialist   non-sequitur   even   further,   suggesting   that   he   supposedly   had   ‘proof'   of   this   theory   as   to   what   supposedly   happens   when   polygamy   is   accepted.   Namely,   he   actually   cited   the   horrendous   example   of   a   rogue   breakaway   Mormon-based   cult   that   kicked   out   many   of   their   young   boys.   In   making   this   comparison,   Jonathan   Rauch   promoted   the   sheer   fallacy   that,   if   consenting   adult   polygamy   was   de-criminalized,   normal   secularized   America   would   ever   somehow   ‘copy'   the   example   of   a   breakaway   cult!" 
 
Citing   another   book,   titled,   "Bare   Branches:   Security   Implications   of   Asia's   Surplus   Male   Population"   (Hudson   and   den   Boer,   2004),   Rauch   was   indeed   the   one   to   first   introduce   the   aforementioned   fourth   sequential   theory   that   absurdly   connected   non-Western   population   controls   through   abortion   as   supposed   "proof"   of   the   over-arching   theory.     Even   so,   Rauch   still   did   not   give   attribution   to   Wright   for   the   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   itself. 
 
 
 
2.4.   ROBERT   WRIGHT   ORIGINATED   THE   THEORY   IN   1994   BOOK 
 
 
Robert   Wright   originated   the   over-arching   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   in   his   1994   book,   "The   Moral   Animal,"   a   book   considered   by   many   researchers   to   be   ground-breaking   in   an   emerging   field   called   "evolutionary   psychology."     While   the   book   does   present   some   surprisingly   accurate   truth   that   polygamy   is   the   "most   Darwinian"   form   of   marriage   (for   those   who   claim   to   believe   in   Darwinism),   Wright   then   departed   from   actual   Darwinism   to   instead   invent   a   rationalization   for   monogamy,   speculating   a   new   theory   as   if   it   was   actually   Darwinian! 
 
On   Page   100,   Robert   Wright   began   his   digression   into   speculation   with   the   use   of   a   special   catch-phrase,   "the   pacifying   effect   of   marriage."   He   had   properly   attributed   the   catch-phrase   to   another   pair   of   researchers,   Martin   Daly   and   Margo   Wilson,   in   "Killing   the   Competition:   Female/Female   and   Male/Male   Homicide."-   Human   Nature,   1990,   1:81-107.       Appearing   "academic"   for   citing   Daly's   and   Wilson's   otherwise   reasonable   catch-phrase,   Wright   immediately   leapt   away   from   science   to   instead   speculate   a   mere   rationalization   for   what   he   self-applauded   as   "perhaps   the   best   argument   for   monogamous   marriage."   To   wit,   Robert   Wright   theorized   that   "unpacified"   low-status   men   would   actually   become   criminals   -   even   rapists   and   murderers   -   because   of   supposedly   being   "deprived"   of   marriage   due   to   the   static   "mathematics"   of   polygamy.        
 
Because   Wright's   book,   "The   Moral   Animal,"   has   been   considered   so   "groundbreaking"   by   so   many   -   especially   among   academics   -   who   study   such   related   fields,   those   who   have   read   the   book   have   thereby   been   exposed   to   Wright's   unproven   theory   and   his   anti-scientific   process   of   first   citing   Daly   and   Wilson   and   then   leaping   away   to   the   speculation   of   the   "unmarried   criminals"   theory. 
 
Consequently,   many   who   have   studiously   consumed   "The   Moral   Animal"   have   repeated   (i.e.,   "regurgitated")   it.     Jonathan   Rauch's   2006   op-ed   simply   did   the   same,   while   not   actually   giving   the   proper   attribution   to   Robert   Wright   for   it. 
 
Henrich's   2010   report   made   the   identical   leap   away   from   Daly's   and   Wilson's     unconnected   research   to   also   thereby   speculate   the   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   against   polygyny.     On   Page   28   of   his   report,   Henrich   sandwiched   his   Daly   and   Wilson   citation   with   sentences   of   unconnected   speculation:   "A   male   who   finds   himself   without   access   to   females   should   be   dramatically   more   likely   to   take   substantial   risks   aimed   at   increasing   his   opportunities   for   sex   (e.g.,   theft,   murder,   etc.).     Ample   empirical   evidence   indicates   that   males   have   a   much   greater   propensity   for   taking   risks   of   all   kinds,   especially   when   status   is   at   stake   (Daly   and   Wilson   1983;   Daly   and   Wilson   1988;   Daly   and   Wilson   1990;   Buss   2007).     This   means   that   social   factors   that   severely   limit   or   restrict   the   reproductive   options   for   low-status   males   will   shift   them   into   this   risk-taking   mode."      
 
Yet,   Robert   Wright   had   originated   both   this   process   of   speculation   after   citing   Daly   and   Wilson   and   this   "unmarried   criminals"   theory. 
 
 
 
2.5.   HENRICH   COPYING   RAUCH   COPYING   WRIGHT 
 
 
Ultimately,   one   can   even   perceive   that   Joseph   Henrich   (in   2010)   was   copying   Jonathan   Rauch   (in   2006)   who   was   copying   Robert   Wright   who   had   originated   the   over-arching   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   (in   1994).     One   may   also   perceive   that   Henrich   further   copied   Rauch's   illogical   use   of   another   book,   "Bare   Branches"   (2004)   -   illogically   connecting   population   control   to   polygamy. 
 
But   that   is   not   all. 
 
Joseph   Henrich's   report   may   also   be   perceived   as   copying   Jonathan   Rauch   in   yet   another   way   too:   using   irrelevant   samples   to   suggest   that   the   same   results   would   happen   in   a   modern   secular   Western   society.     In   his   2006   op-ed,   Rauch   had   made   the   truly   illogical   comparison   in   suggesting   that   what   happened   in   an   isolated   cult   would   somehow   equally   occur   in   a   modern   secular   Western   society.     In   the   very   same   way,   Joseph   Henrich's   2010   report   posited   the   illogical   notion   that   studies   of   what   happened   with   historic   Mormon   Polygamists   or   with   contemporary   non-Western   societies   could   be   universally   interpreted   and   expected   to   equally   occur   in   a   modern   secular   Western   society. 
 
The   unoriginality   of   copying   both   the   unproven   theories   and   the   flawed   technique   of   comparing   non-modern   societies   to   modern   secular   Western   societies   -   all   while   excluding   proper   attribution   -   combine   to   discredit   Joseph   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report. 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
3.   Discredit   #2: 
        Henrich's   Other   Research   Set   Standard 
------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
3.1.   HENRICH'S   OTHER   RESEARCH   ONE   MONTH   BEFORE 
 
 
Observing   that   Joseph   Henrich   was   copying   the   same   theories   and   techniques   from   Rauch   and   Wright   presents   the   greatest   irony   that   Joseph   Henrich   even   authored   the   anti-polygamy   report.      
 
Henrich's   "research   interpretation"   of   using   non-modern,   non-Western   samples     to   universally   represent   what   would   supposedly   happen   in   modern   secular   Western   society   is   in   direct   contradiction   to   the   very   academic   research   he   had   professionally   published   with   fellow   academics   just   one   month   before   his   July   16,   2010,   anti-polygamy   report. 
 
On   June   15,   2010,   the   Cambridge   University   Press   published   the   academic   research,   titled,   "The   Weirdest   People   in   the   world?"     The   research   was   conducted   and   reported   by   Joseph   Henrich   (Department   of   Psychology   and   Department   of   Economics),   Steven   J.   Heine   (Department   of   Psychology),   and   Ara   Norenzayan   (Department   of   Psychology)   -   all   three   at   the   University   of   British   Columbia. 
 
The   academic   research   found   that,   despite   the   fact   that   population   samples   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   are   "particularly   unusual"   and   so   very   different   from   other   sample   populations   of   other   societies   around   the   world,   a   vast   proportion   of   academic   researchers   in   the   behavioral   sciences   have   actually   concluded   universal   interpretations   based   on   results   from   such   sample   populations   which   cannot   be   compared   with   other   societies.     Decrying   the   erroneous   making   of   such   universal   interpretations   across   incomparable   human   populations,   Henrich   and   his   fellow   academic   researchers   concluded   that   researchers   should   confine   their   interpretations   only   to   their   sampled   populations. 
 
 
 
3.2.   WESTERN   SOCIETIES   ARE   UNUSUAL   FROM   OTHER   SOCIETIES 
 
 
The   Abstract   of   the   academic   research   opened   with   the   following   assessment:   "Behavioral   scientists   routinely   publish   broad   claims   about   human   psychology   and   behavior   in   the   world's   top   journals   based   on   samples   drawn   entirely   from   Western,   Educated,   Industrialized,   Rich,   and   Democratic   (WEIRD)   societies.   Researchers   -   often   implicitly   -   assume   that   either   there   is   little   variation   across   human   populations,   or   that   these   ‘standard   subjects'   are   as   representative   of   the   species   as   any   other   population.   Are   these   assumptions   justified?   Here,   our   review   of   the   comparative   database   from   across   the   behavioral   sciences   suggests   both   that   there   is   substantial   variability   in   experimental   results   across   populations   and   that   WEIRD   subjects   are   particularly   unusual   compared   with   the   rest   of   the   species." 
 
By   those   last   words,   the   academic   research   fully   declared   that   people   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   -   i.e.,   those   which   the   researchers   identified   by   the   acronym,   "WEIRD"   societies   -   are   very   unusual   and   very   different   from   other   human   societies. 
 
In   "Section   2.1,"   titled,   "The   behavioral   sciences   database   is   narrow,"   the   academic   research   presented   the   following   findings:   "Who   are   the   people   studied   in   behavioral   science   research?   A   recent   analysis   of   the   top   journals   in   six   subdisciplines   of   psychology   from   2003   to   2007   revealed   that   68%   of   subjects   came   from   the   United   States,   and   a   full   96%   of   subjects   were   from   Western   industrialized   countries,   specifically   those   in   North   America   and   Europe,   as   well   as   Australia   and   Israel..." 
 
It   continued,   "Beyond   psychology   and   cognitive   science,   the   subject   pools   of   experimental   economics   and   decision   science   are   not   much   more   diverse   -   still   largely   dominated   by   Westerners,   and   specifically   Western   undergraduates..." 
 
Concluding   the   section,   the   academic   research   commented   on   the   current   database   of   research   conducted   with   samples   from   mostly   Western   college   undergraduates   as   if   they   were   representative   of   all   human   beings   in   all   cultures   around   the   globe:   "In   sum,   the   available   database   does   not   reflect   the   full   breadth   of   human   diversity.   Rather,   we   have   largely   been   studying   the   nature   of   WEIRD   people,   a   certainly   narrow   and   potentially   peculiar   subpopulation." 
 
 
 
3.3.   CONFINE   INTERPRETATIONS   ONLY   TO   SAMPLED   POPULATIONS 
 
 
In   its   "Section   2.2."   titled,   "Researchers   often   assume   their   findings   are   universal,"   the   academic   research   noted   the   real   problem   of   such   erroneous   interpretation   of   samplings:   "Sampling   from   a   thin   slice   of   humanity   would   be   less   problematic   if   researchers   confined   their   interpretations   to   the   populations   from   which   they   sampled.   However,   despite   their   narrow   samples,   behavioral   scientists   often   are   interested   in   drawing   inferences   about   the   human   mind   and   human   behavior.   This   inferential   step   is   rarely   challenged   or   defended..." 
 
With   this   June   15,   2010,   research,   Henrich's   research   team   declared   a   legitimately   necessary   standard   for   valid   research.     It   identified   the   error   for   researchers   to   assume   a   universal   interpretation   from   findings   obtained   from   incomparable   population   samples   of   human   beings.     Findings   obtained   from   a   sample   population   in   modern   secular   Western   ("WEIRD")   societies   can   not   be   interpreted   as   universally   applicable   to   non-modern,   non-Western   populations.     And   vice   versa:   findings   from   non-modern,   non-Western   populations   can   not   be   interpreted   as   universally   applicable   to   modern   secular   Western   ("WEIRD")   societies   either. 
 
 
 
3.4.   HENRICH   DREW   THE   VERY   INFERENCE   HIS   OTHER   RESEARCH   DECRIED 
 
 
Yet,   one   month   later,   in   his   subsequent   anti-polygamy   report   for   the   British   Columbia   Supreme   Court   in   Canada,   Joseph   Henrich   did   just   that   -   violating   the   very   standard   he   had   previously   set   for   research   interpretation. 
 
Although   he   was   only   sampling   the   thin   slices   of   historic   Mormon   polygamous   societies   and   contemporary   African   polygamous   societies,   Joseph   Henrich   did   not   confine   his   interpretation   to   those   populations   from   which   he   was   sampling.     Instead,   Heinrich   inflated   those   thin   slices   to   make   a   universal   interpretation   that   what   he   observed   in   those   sampled   populations   would   equally   occur   in   modern   secular   Western,   Educated,   Industrialized,   Rich,   and   Democratic   (WEIRD)   societies. 
 
Hence,   his   July   16,   2010,   anti-polygamy   report   conducted   the   very   same   erroneous   act   -   of   making   a   universal   interpretation   based   on   incomparable   societies   -   against   which   his   June   15,   2010   academic   research   team's   report   had   denounced.    
 
Thereby,   with   his   own   June   15,   2010,   academic   research,   Joseph   Henrich   actually   self-discredited   his   July   16,   2010,   anti-polygamy   report. 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
4.   Discredit   #3: 
        Under-supply   of   Men   Wanting   Marriage 
------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
4.1.   ECONOMICS   &   EVIDENCE   IN   WESTERN   SOCIETIES   NOT   CONSIDERED 
 
 
However,   the   discrediting   does   not   even   stop   there. 
 
Using   non-modern   non-Western   sampled   populations,   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report   regurgitated   the   unproven   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   to   suggest   that   an   "over-supply   of   marry-able   men"   would   somehow   occur   from   polygamy   being   allowed   in   modern   secular   Western   society.     Yet,   neither   established   economic   principles   which   pertain   to   the   marriage   market   nor   the   readily   available   evidence   from   the   actually-applicable   populations   of   such   contemporary   Western   societies   were   even   considered   in   the   anti-polygamy   report. 
 
As   a   member   of   the   Economics   Department   at   the   University   of   British   Columbia,   Henrich   fully   ignored   known   economic   principles   that   such   a   "scholar"   would   otherwise   have   been   expected   to   have   known.   Regardless   of   the   difference   of   Keynes   versus   Hayek   economic   schools   of   thought,   applying   the   standard   principles   of   microeconomics   regarding   the   supply   and   demand   of   men   and   women   wanting   marriage,   economists   understand   that   a   free   marriage   market   would   result   in   incentivizing   men   (suppliers)   to   "have   to"   improve   the   excellence   of   their   husband-qualities,   thereby   giving   much   better   options   to   women   (demanders)   in   the   marriage   market.   Whether   or   not   a   man   actually   attracts   more   than   one   woman   to   marry   him   as   a   polygamist   is   irrelevant.   The   simple   freedom   to   do   so   incentivizes   men   to   improve   in   husband-quality   excellence   -   the   principle   of   free   market   economics. 
 
But   a   marriage   market   of   enforced   one-man/one-woman   is   a   detrimental   "marriage   Marxism"   (i.e.,   "one   for   each   so   that   each   might   have   one").     It   distorts   the   market   by   artificially   creating   a   re-distributive   limitation   on   the   supply   and   demand.     Such   re-distributive   limitation   is   called   socialism;   and,   socialism   always   disincentivizes   suppliers   into   no   longer   improving   excellence,   thereby   leaving   demanders   only   with   access   to   mediocrity   and   quality-shortage. 
 
The   marital   socialism   of   enforced   one-man/one-woman   clearly   disincentivizes   men   to   even   try   to   be   better.     After   all,   because   non-good   men   are   on   "equal"   standing   with   good   men   in   the   marriage   market,   the   non-good   men   know   that   most   women   will   have   to   "settle"   for   whichever   non-good   men   remain   after   the   good   men   are   "snatched   up"   by   the   most   clever   women. 
 
For   Henrich   to   be   an   Economics   academic,   it   is   startling   that   his   anti-polygamy   report   fully   abandoned   such   established   economic   principles.     But   not   only   that,   the   easily   observable   evidence   -   already   available   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   -   has   fully   proven   the   consequences   of   the   marital   socialism   of   enforced   one-man/one-woman.     Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report   did   not   even   mention   such   actually-applicable   evidence.    
 
The   whole   intended   reason   for   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report   was   to   provide   academic   insight   for   the   B.C.   Canadian   Supreme   Court   as   it   considers   the   legal   question   of   what   would   happen   if   polygamy   was   no   longer   disallowed   in   Canada.     That   is,   Henrich   was   purporting   to   "answer"   the   question   of   what   might   be   expected   to   happen   if   the   Supreme   Court   allowed   polygamy   in   that   modern   secular   Western   ("WEIRD")   country. 
 
If   Henrich's   report   had   used   both   his   economics   background   and   the   readily   available   evidence   from   modern   secular   Western   societies,   it   would   not   have   regurgitated   the   unproven   "unmarried   criminals"   theory   to   suggest   that   a   supposed   danger   and   over-supply   of   men   could   occur.   Using   the   actually-applicable   evidence,   the   report   would   have   instead   revealed   the   current   under-supply   of   men-who-want-marriage   as   a   clear   affirmation   of   the   established   economic   principles.     And   it   would   have   equated   that   current   under-supply   of   men-wanting-to-marry   women   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   as   being   a   direct   result   of   the   disincentivization   caused   by   the   enforced   "marriage   Marxism"   of   one-man/one-woman. 
 
  Yet,   neither   such   established   economic   principles   nor   the   actually-applicable   Western-population   evidence   were   even   considered   for   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report.     Such   evidence   reveals   much   indeed. 
 
 
 
4.2.   NO   "IMBALANCE"   FROM   ALLOWED   MULTIPLE   GIRLFRIENDS 
 
 
Most   visibly   obvious   of   all,   it   is   already   quite   legal   in   Western   societies   for   uncommitted   men   to   have   multiple   girlfriends.     As   I   (Mark   Henkel)   said   directly   to   TV   journalist   John   Stossel   on   ABC's   "20/20"   and   again   on   his   own   show,   FOX   Business   Network's,   "Stossel,"   "Someone   like   a   Hugh   Hefner   will   have   a   successful   television   show   with   three   live-in   girlfriends.   And   that's   all   okay.   And   he's   making   great   money,   and   that's   fine   and   great   entertainment.   But   suddenly,   if   that   man   was   to   marry   them,   then   suddenly   he's   a   criminal.   That's   insane!" 
 
It   is   even   further   "insane"   to   suggest   that   any   possible   consequences   of   marriage-committed   polygamy   are   somehow   "more   dangerous"   than   the   unquestioned   legal   allowance   of   uncommitted   men   having   multiple   girlfriends. 
 
Truly,   any   man   in   Western   society   -   as   long   as   the   women   fully   consent   -   may   legally   have   multiple   girlfriends   with   no   commitment.     But   for   any   man   in   Western   society   to   have   multiple   consenting   adult   wives,   doing   so   would   absolutely   require   him   to   be   very   committed.     Hence,   in   Western   societies   with   modern   women,   it   is   vastly   "easier"   on   a   personal   level   for   an   uncommitted   boyfriend   to   have   more   than   one   simultaneous   girlfriend   than   it   would   be   for   a   committed   husband   to   have   more   than   one   fully   consenting   adult   wife.    
 
Despite   the   "easier"   (girlfriend)   option   already   being   legally   allowed,   the   evidence   shows   that   very   few   men   are   even   capable   of   attracting   such   willing-women   to   join   them   in   such   arrangements.     Indeed,   few   women   in   Western   society   have   ever   been   so   willing.    
 
Consequently,   this   evidence   from   Western   society   reveals   that   there   is   definitely   no   "imbalance"   of   men   to   women,   as   somehow   caused   by   the   very   rare   occurrences   of   this   "easier"   option. 
 
Moreover,   even   if   polygamy   was   allowed,   most   women   in   Western   societies   would   not   suddenly   change   their   thinking   and   then   all   of   a   sudden   start   wanting   for   themselves   to   "be   hoarded   by   the   top   few   high-status   men."     While   some   women   would   re-consider   it,   and   some   could   truly   benefit   from   the   allowance   of   a   polygamy   option   if   they   intentionally   chose   it   for   themselves,   it   is   wholly   irrational   to   think   that   massive   numbers   of   women   in   Western   societies   would   actually   flock   to   that   option   for   themselves.    
 
What   this   easily   observable   evidence   -   from   populations   in   the   West   -   proves   is   that,   just   because   an   option   is   legally   allowed,   it   does   not   mean   that   everyone   will   choose   it   for   their   own   lives.     And   it   certainly   indicates   that   the   "more   difficult"   issue   of   committed   polygamy   would   clearly   not   cause   any   supposed   "imbalance"   of   men   to   women   either. 
 
 
 
4.3.   THREE   EVIDENCES   IMPACTING   WESTERN   MARRIAGE   RATIOS 
 
 
Actually,   the   issue   is   not   about   men-to-women   ratios   anyway.     A   more   applicable   concern,   if   anything   at   all,   would   be   the   ratio   of   men-who-want-to-marry-women   to   the   women-who-want-to-marry-men.     And   for   anyone   who   holds   that   to   be   a   valid   concern,   the   evidence   is   clear   that   there   is   currently   an   actual   under-supply   of   such   specific   men. 
 
Today's   modern   secular   Western   societies   are   overflowing   with   "marriage-phobic   males."     Truly,   the   single   most   frequent   and   common   joke   throughout   Western   societies   -   told   more   often   by   the   largest   number   of   stand   up   comics   than   any   other   joke-context   -   typically   involves   some   humorous   reference   about   men's   phobia   of   getting   married!     It   is   the   single   most   well-known   joke   of   Western   societies.     Humor   reveals   truth,   and   no   one   questions   this   fact   because   it   is   readily   observed   "everywhere"   in   Western   societies.     The   term,   "marriage-phobic   males,"   is   not   at   all   an   understated   description   of   multitudes   of   men   in   modern   secular   Western   societies. 
 
Side   by   side   with   that   fact,   contemporary   Western   societies   are   now   also   filled   with   a   startlingly   high   number   of   abandoned   single   moms.     The   political   lamentations   of   this   fact   are   incessantly   cited,   as   more   and   more   children   in   Western   societies   are   sadly   being   raised   without   their   fathers.   This   easily   observable   fact   makes   it   wholly   irrational   to   assert   that   any   so-called   "balance"   of   men   to   women   for   marriage   is   even   currently   happening   in   modern   Western   societies. 
 
Moreover,   modern   secular   Western   societies   have   also   undeniably   experienced   the   political   push   for   an   entirely   new   legal   construct   called,   "same   sex   marriage"   (also   known   as   "gay   marriage").       Regardless   of   whether   one   is   a   proponent   or   opponent   of   same   sex   marriage,   any   quick   internet   search   regarding   the   ratios   of   exclusively   homosexual   men   versus   exclusively   homosexual   women   in   Western   societies   reveals   that   many,   many   more   men   than   women   self-identify   such   exclusivity.   The   presence   of   more   exclusively   same   sex   male   relationships   than   exclusively   same   sex   female   relationships   in   Western   societies   very   obviously   reduces   the   "male   tally"   of   available   men   wanting   marriage   with   women.      
 
The   undeniable   proofs   of   "marriage-phobic   males,"   of   abandoned   single   moms,   and   of   the   push   for   same   sex   marriage   -   all   occurring   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   -   make   one   "mathematic"   fact   obvious.       Not   all   of   the   "marry-able   men"   even   want   to   get   married   to   the   "marry-able   women."     It   actually   reveals   that,   in   Western   societies,   there   is   a   clear   under-supply   of   men   wanting   marriage   with   women   -   and   thereby   certainly   no   supposed   threat   of   it   being   the   other   way   around. 
 
The   current   "under-supply   of   marry-able   men"   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   reveals   myriad   ways   in   which   polygamy   could   actually   be   of   value   for   the   women   who   want   marriage.     Hence,   it   is   without   logic   to   posit   extreme   pessimism   over   reasonable   optimism   about   the   possibility   of   polygamy   in   modern   secular   Western   societies.     Established   economic   principles   expose   the   blatant   falsehood   of   regurgitating   the   fear-mongering   pessimism   of   the   unproven   over-arching   theory   that   allowing   polygamy   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   would   somehow   incentivize   unmarried   men   to   become   "unmarried   criminals."       Rather,   such   established   economics   actually   reveal   a   far   greater   and   more   accurate   reason   for   valid   optimism,   that   the   mere   allowance   of   polygamy   would   incentivize   unmarried   men   to   then   self-improve   too   -   thereby   equilibrating   the   marriage   market   anyway.       Not   only   should   the   phrase,   "all   the   good   men   are   taken,"   no   longer   apply,   but   even   the   used-to-be-non-good   men   would   be   incentivized   to   self-improve   their   husband-qualities   to   become   good   men   too   -   thereby   improving   the   overall   quality   of   all   marry-able   men   for   all   women   who   want   to   marry   them. 
 
Ultimately,   this   current   under-supply   of   men-who-want-to-marry-women   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   can   be   seen   as   demonstrating   how   consenting   adult   polygamy   actually   could   positively   benefit   and   serve   the   current   needs   of   women-who-want-to-marry-men.      
 
Hence,   both   established   economic   principles   and   such   readily   available   evidence   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   of   this   "under-supply   of   marry-able   men"   even   further   discredit   Joseph   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report. 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------- 
5.   Conclusion: 
        Henrich's   Anti-Polygamy   Report   is   Discredited 
------------------------------------------------- 
 
 
 
5.1.   DISCREDITED   THREE   WAYS 
 
 
For   brevity,   this   analysis   has   been   confined   to   identifying   only   three   ways   by   which   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report   is   fully   discredited. 
 
First,   Joseph   Henrich's   anti-polygamy   report   simply   regurgitated   unproven   theories   which   were   not   his   own.     Not   only   that,   but   he   even   copied   Wright's   actual   process   of   first   citing   Daly   and   Wilson   and   then   leaping   away   to   the   unconnected   speculation   of   copying   Wright's   discredited   "unmarried   criminals"   theory.     Such   regurgitation   without   attribution   discredits   the   report   as   seeming   plagiarism. 
 
Second,   in   his   June   15,   2010,   academic   research,   Joseph   Henrich   established   a   "research   standard"   of   confining   interpretations   to   only   sampled   populations   in   research,   noting   that   modern   secular   Western   societies   are   "particularly   unusual"   from   other   populations   around   the   world.     Yet,   in   his   subsequent   July   16,   2010,   anti-polygamy   report,   he   directly   violated   his   own   "research   standard"   by   interpreting   results   from   sampled   "non-WEIRD"   populations   to   suggest   that   those   examples   would   universally   demonstrate   how   de-criminalized   polygamy   would   supposedly   equally   occur   in   a   modern   secular   Western   (WEIRD)   society.     By   his   own   "research   standard"   against   using   samples   that   do   not   compare   with   modern   secular   Western   societies,   Henrich   himself   discredits   his   anti-polygamy   report   for   using   incomparable   evidence   to   make   invalid   universal   interpretations. 
 
Third,   established   economic   principles   and   the   readily   available   evidence   in   such   modern   secular   Western   societies   both   reveal   that   there   is   nothing   to   fear   with   polygamy.     Not   only   has   legal   allowance   of   "multiple   girlfriends"   not   caused   any   under-supply   of   available   women,   but   the   sheer   rarity   of   that   "easier"   option   even   occurring   demonstrates   how   even   that   much   fewer   people   would   choose   the   "more   difficult"   option   of   committed   polygamy   if   allowed.     Also,   other   easily   available   evidence   in   modern   secular   Western   societies   of   "marriage-phobic   males,"   of   abandoned   single   moms,   and   of   the   advance   of   same-sex   marriage,   all   actually   reveal   an   under-supply   of   men   who   want   to   marry   women.     Using   established   economic   principles,   such   other   evidence   can   be   seen   as   the   direct   result   of   the   disincentivization   caused   by   the   enforced   "marriage   Marxism"   of   one-man/one-woman.   Contradicting   the   irrationally   pessimistic   "unmarried   criminals"   theory,   such   established   economic   principles   and   the   actually-applicable   evidence   indicate   that   a   free   marriage   market   allowing   polygamy   in   a   modern   secular   Western   society   would   instead   incentivize   unmarried   non-good-men   to   self-improvement.     Thereby   improving   overall   husband-quality   for   women   and   equilibrating   the   marriage   market   anyway,   these   principles   and   actual   evidence   further   discredit   the   anti-polygamy   report. 
 
Therefore,   Joseph   Henrich's   July   16,   2010,   anti-polygamy   report   has   been   completely   discredited. 
 
 
 
5.2.   CHIEF   JUSTICE   CAN   DISMISS   HENRICH'S   DISCREDITED   REPORT 
 
 
As   The   Vancouver   Sun   reported,   Joseph   Henrich   had   "never   really   thought   about   (polygamy)   until   this   year."     Indeed,   he   conducted   no   original   or   direct   research   with   which   to   even   contemplate   making   his   anti-polygamy   report.     He   certainly   never   conducted   any   research   with   any   proven   non-Mormon   pro-polygamy   expert   in   Western   society.     Henrich   demonstrably   had   no   valid   qualification   -   and   had   performed   no   factually-unbiased   investigation   -   with   which   to   express   any   valid   insight   about   polygamy   in   modern   secular   Western   society.     And   it   showed. 
 
As   of   this   writing,   the   British   Columbia   Supreme   Court   in   Canada   was   set   to   consider   the   polygamy   question   in   November,   2010.     This   analysis   has   presented   the   more   accurate   information,   with   which   to   helpfully   inform   the   Court   -   and   others   -   about   polygamy,   and   by   which   to   offer   guidance   for   what   to   do   with   Henrich's   report. 
 
That   Court's   Chief   Justice   Robert   Bauman   -   and   all   others,   hereafter   -   can   confidently   dismiss   it.     Joseph   Henrich's   45-page   anti-polygamy   report   has   been   utterly   and   completely   discredited. 


###


Bibliographic URLs:

 
 
Affidavit #1 of Joseph Henrich, July 15, 2010 
http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf 
 
 
"Polygamy is harmful to society, scholar finds."  
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Polygamy+harmful+society+scholar+finds/3290757/story.html 
 
 
Jonathan Rauch's 2006 op-ed 
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem/ 
 
 
TruthBearer.org organization's response to Rauch's 2006 op-ed 
http://www.truthbearer.org/media/reason/2006-04-03-one-man-many-wives-big-problems/ 
 
 
"The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright 
http://books.google.com/books?id=1K-cQgAACAAJ&dq=Moral+Animal:+The+New+Science+of+Evolutionary+Psychology&hl=en&ei=9hYYTJfBPMOAlAf4xN2FDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA 
 
 
"Bare Branches" by Valerie M. Hudson & Andrea M. Den Boer 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262582643/ 
 
 
"The Weirdest People in the world?" 
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=7825834&jid=BBS&volumeId=33&issueId=2-3&aid=7825833&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0140525X0999152X 
 
 
For extra background: "Why We're All WEIRD" 
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Why-Were-All-WEIRD/25281/ 
 
 
"Joe Henrich" BIO at Universtiy of British Columbia 
http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/ 
 
 
 
[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.]



image
image
Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  


2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.


2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the TruthBearer.org organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.


2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.


Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

Subscribe

Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"Pro-Polygamy.com" is an exclusive legal Trademark of Pro-Polygamy.com ™.