How Do You Know a Gamma is Lying

The relentless dishonesty of the Gamma Male is predictable

Q: How do you know a Gamma is lying?

A: Because his mouth is moving.

That sounds like a bad joke, but it’s really not all that far off from the truth. One thing that you can’t help encountering on the Internet, particularly if you’re an author or even just a regular reader, is Gammas attempting to police the subjects of which they consider themselves to be a subject matter expert.

And one thing you can’t help noticing is that they are relentlessly and shamelessly dishonest in their attempts to police things that call into question their most precious beliefs, which include everything from atheism and evolution to the belief that they are the smartest Smart Boy in the room.

I’ve been running into this sort of thing on a regular basis recently due to the fact that my two most recent books, Probability Zero and The Frozen Gene, have both been #1 biology bestsellers on Amazon. They’re very solid books, with a considerable amount of math and science supporting the various claims and critiques made; the latter contains no less than 12 science papers providing copious evidence that ranges from ancient DNA data databases to landmark studies from the 20th century.

All of which was blithely dismissed by the typical Gamma police, such as one RegalBlue in response to an interview with me about Probability Zero.

The math he uses is completely incorrect, and he seems to have a profound misunderstanding of what the terms he’s using mean. It’s not surprising that a bunch of creationist retards are the only ones clamoring to buy this.

Here is the key thing to notice about a Gamma in thought-policing mode. He will always, and I mean always, attack in the most general possible terms in order to prevent any direct response. Notice the word “seems” which is a fundamental part of the Gamma’s mealy-mouthed vocabulary. There is never any substance to a Gamma critique, because Gammas are desperate to avoid being the subject of a counterattack.

For example, Probability Zero has hundreds of calculations, dozens of equations, and even an original derivation or two. Which of them is incorrect in any way, shape, or form? The Gamma doesn’t say, he just airily declares the math used to be “completely incorrect". And as for the “profound misunderstanding”, a review of the failed attempts to critique the book make it obvious that this is pure projection on his part; the most serious critic of the book completely confused the secondary argument of the book for the core one.

Still not sure how that happened, considering that the core argument is literally the subtitle of the book and is right on the cover.

Notice how the single one-star review on Amazon follows this pattern.

1.0 out of 5 stars This book is pseudoscientific garbage

This books is complete and utter GARBAGE and pseudoscience. The author doesn’t understand basic statistics and blatantly misuses scientific papers he relies on. Dennis McCarthy, author of widely praised articles and a book on evolution and biogeography, has demolished Vox Day’s argument in a short recent blog post. Google “Dennis McCarthy why Probability Zero is wrong evolution.”

Do indeed. Here we see another typical Gamma sign, which is the appeal to the false authority. Now, I like Dennis McCarthy. He’s an excellent literary historian and has done landmark work on Shakespeare. But he is not a scientific authority of any kind, and he observably does not have either the knowledge or the ability to understand the mathematical arguments involved.

Perhaps the most amusing thing about this “review” of a book that the reviewer clearly hasn’t even read is the fact that the “scientific papers” upon which I rely were mostly written by me. You can even read the 14 of them that I’ve made public, if you like.

Now, I’m not complaining about the fact that Gammas are attacking my new books. First of all, it’s absolutely unavoidable. Second, it’s actually a sign that the books have been successful, because Gammas are stimulated into action by seeing that someone, somewhere, is getting attention for something. And third, it’s a useful way of demonstrating the predictable patterns of Gamma behavior so others can see it and not mistake it for genuine, substantive criticism in the future.