My interview with Red Ice Radio on Smart and SeXy

Share Button

Listen to the whole thing here. You can get a copy of the book here. Additional reviews and excerpts can be found here. Here is a summary of the first hour:

Roderick joins us for an eye-opening conversation on the biological differences between men and women. After a lighthearted rumination on International Women’s Day, we dive into the main topic of the show. Roderick explains that most scientists are aware of racial and sexual differences, but choose to keep quiet for the sake of their careers. Next, we discuss anthropologist Melvin Konner’s assertion that maleness is a defect – an absurd claim, to be sure, which Roderick easily refutes. We then discuss the discrimination hypothesis. Roderick argues that it is biological differences, not discrimination, that results in different outcomes for men and women. The first hour covers much more, including male-female differences in intelligence, transgenderism, and homosexuality.

FavoriteLoadingAdd to favorites

3 Replies to “My interview with Red Ice Radio on Smart and SeXy”

  1. I just started listening to some Red Ice Radio and this one was among the first few. Very happy to have run across your work and I’m just going through some of your older blog posts.

    I’m curious if you’re familiar with Anonymous Conservative’s political psychology work using r/K selection theory, etc. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/

    And if so, what your thoughts are on it. I’m very intrigued and have followed his blog for a while now, and I’m reading his book right now. It sure makes a lot of sense to me and seems to explain a lot of the otherwise inexplicable actions of the left, such as the importing of the 3rd world to the U.S. and Europe.

    Anyway, good work and I’m looking forward to reading your book and following your blog.

    1. I am glad you liked the interview. I also started doing a podcast with Brett Stevens of Amerika.org which we post occasionally. I like anonymousconservative and while I don’t know for sure that r/k selection applies, it certainly seems plausible and explanatory of the patterns we can observe.

      1. Yes, I’ve just recently run across the podcast and have started to catch up on them. Enjoyable and interesting discussions; even with Peter. I guess he’s a good foil; I’ll keep it at that.

        And I’m quite intrigued with Brett’s thoughts and viewpoints. Interesting times, for sure.

        Thanks for the reply.

Leave a Reply