Sunday, February 20, 2005

How Evolutionary Psychology Can Make You Look Like an Ass

There is something about evolutionary psychology (EP) that makes it very attractive to non-psychologists (and to undergraduate psych majors -- you should see them rushing to register for EP courses). I've never been entirely sure what it is about EP that makes non-experts find it so fascinating, and more often than not, swallow it's claims without hesitation. Perhaps it's the simplicity and intuitiveness of many of the explanations. Cheating is bad, and harmful, therefore it is adaptive for us to have evolved a mechanism for detecting it. That's pretty simple and intuitive, right? Of course, this is one of the many reasons that most psychologists don't seem to find EP very attractive. The explanations generally rely on little more than intuition bolstered by sketchy, usually non-experimentally derived data. A careful review of the EP literature would give a scientist little confidence in its claims. However, there are plenty of non-psychologists who are happy to read some trade books on EP, and treat it as gospel. Doing so leads them to come up with all sorts of nonsensical arguments about human behavior. This is especially true when EP "theories" are used to make political arguments, as was the case in a recent essay by Will Wilkinson for the Cato Institute.

Now Wilkinson's formal training is in philosophy, and while he does cite three books on EP and politics, making it reasonable (or at least less charitable) to assume that he's read something on the topic, it's quite clear that his knowledge of EP is minimal. We see this, for instance, in his citing of Oliver Goodenough and Kristin Prehn, whose name he misspells, as the sources of original research on the detection of moral transgressions, when, in fact, she has not published any such research, only a review of the literature for a special issue of a philosophy journal. He furthermore cites the Tooby and Cosmides' social exchange theory, for which there is preciously little (if any) evidence, and even cites their Wason selection task experiments, which have been shown to provide no evidence for their conclusions. He also cites Robert Kurzban's research on social groups as having "shown," which I assume means demonstrated with certainty, that certain aspects of in-group, out-group dynamics have an evolutionary basis. However, if he had even read Kurzban's research, he would know that there are plenty of other alternative theories that explain the data, and that Kurzban has produced preciously little new data in support of his own theory. Given this, we can be sure that Wilkinson is not interested in the science of EP, but only in accepting its claims uncritically, and drawing his own conclusions from them. And that is in fact what he does. I'll go through his major claims, one by one.

1.) The evolutionary basis of in-group, out-group dynamics leads to the following conclusion:
We cannot, however, consistently think of ourselves as members only of that one grand coalition: the Brotherhood of Mankind. Our disposition to think in terms of "us" versus "them" is irremediable and it has unavoidable political implications.
Wilkinson's conclusion is probably true, though it's certainly not new. Social psychologists have been making similar points for decades, without the benefit (burden) of evolutionary stories. In fact, the two evolutionary stories that Wilkinson cites here, the social exchange theory, which can be thrown out due to a lack of evidence, and significant amounts of recalcitrant data, and Kurzban's theories of stigmatization and social categorization, which also has preciously little empirical support, are utterly superfluous in Wilkinson's argument. They're little more than distractions from the real point: that in-group, out-group dynamics appear across cultures, and that understanding them is important if we are to successfully transcend perceived group boundaries.

3.) Wilkinson writes:

There is evidence that greater skill and initiative could lead to higher status and bigger shares of resources for an individual in the EEA. But because of the social nature of hunting and gathering, the fact that food spoiled quickly, and the utter absence of privacy, the benefits of individual success in hunting or foraging could not be easily internalized by the individual, and were expected to be shared. The EEA was for the most part a zero-sum world, where increases in total wealth through invention, investment, and extended economic exchange were totally unknown. More for you was less for me. Therefore, if anyone managed to acquire a great deal more than anyone else, that was pretty good evidence that theirs was a stash of ill-gotten gains, acquired by cheating, stealing, raw force, or, at best, sheer luck. Envy of the disproportionately wealthy may have helped to reinforce generally adaptive norms of sharing and to help those of lower status on the dominance hierarchy guard against further predation by those able to amass power.

Our zero-sum mentality makes it hard for us to understand how trade and investment can increase the amount of total wealth. We are thus ill-equipped to easily understand our own economic system.

These features of human nature—that we are coalitional, hierarchical, and envious zero-sum thinkers—would seem to make liberal capitalism extremely unlikely. And it is. However, the benefits of a liberal market order can be seen in a few further features of the human mind and social organization in the EEA.

This argument borders on the nonsensical. Even if we ignore the merely speculative assertions about the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness), Wilkinson's conclusions simply do not follow from his non-EP premises: humans are coalitional, hierarchical, and envious. In fact, it is the coalitional and hierarchical nature of human groups that makes economic and power hierarchies so natural, and readily accepted by most individuals. Thousands of years of human society demonstrate this, making Wilkinson's ultimate conclusion baffling. Even if we refer to the primate data, we will still come to the conclusion that economic hierarchies are natural, easily understood, and widely accepted. In nonhuman primates, higher-status individuals have access more and better resources (including food and mates), and, in direct contrast to Wilkinson's claim, the best way to move up in the hierarchy is to invest in groups of similarly low status individuals in order to gang up on higher-status individuals. While higher status individuals, in both human and nonhuman species, often do steal and use force to gain resources and maintain their status, it is not automatically assumed that they have done so by "cheating," but instead have done so through natural social processes. It's not surprising, then, that exchange and unequal distributions of wealth have dominated human societies even during the times when group sizes were relatively small, i.e. in the EEA.

In short, then, Wilkinson's premises lead to a conclusion contradictory to his own. In fact, as economists, political scientists, and social psychologists have noted for decades, various systems of economic and political hierarchies flow quite naturally out of our seemingly innate understanding of social hierarchies. This is because they mirror the structure of hierarchical social structures, be it through tradition, the consolidation of power, or the control of production and resources (Habermas has an entire book on this stuff, with no mention of evolution).

4.) Citing a paper he clearly has not read by Goodenough and Prehn, Wilkinson argues that neuroscientific research has demonstrated that we have innate property concepts, out of which property rights naturally flow. This claim is absurd given the data. Even if we did have consistent research demonstrating that certain brain areas are active during reasoning about property rights in adult humans, this would hardly be evidence that property concepts are innate. Furthermore, we have no such evidence! It doesn't appear that the detection of property right violations are any more automatic than other forms of moral reasoning, and the lack of cross-cultural data makes it impossible to know just how natural they are. What we do know about moral cognition and its neural correlates goes against everything Wilkinson says in the section on property rights. In particular, imaging studies of moral reasoning demonstrate that its neural correlates are spread throughout the brain, utilizing brain centers that likely developed for other tasks (e.g., decision making), and that there is likely no "moral reasoning module," much less a "property rights violation module," as Wilkinson implies there is. If Wilkinson had read any of the literature (including the paper by the authors he actually cites), he would know this. In particular, I recommend three papers by William D. Casebeer (one with Patricia Churchland), which are here, here, and here (the third is a fairly extensive literature review), along with this review paper by Greene and Haidt.

5.) Citing social exchange theory again, Wilkinson writes, "The human mind is 'built' to trade." Well, social exchange theory, in all its falsifiedness, certainly doesn't demonstrate this. It is true that reciprocity appears to be universal in humans, though this universality arises largely out of cooperative behavior, not trace specifically. Trade may, then, be a natural offshoot of reciprocity, but nothing here implies that trade is innate.

From there, Wilkinson goes on to argue, taking EP speculations about the EEA as certain truths, that modern capitalism is difficult for most humans to comprehend because we evolved to exist in smaller groups, with all of the features he claims in 1-4. This makes absolutely no sense. First, even during the EEA, when humans did exist in small groups for the most part, inter-group trade was common in some areas, and for at least 10,000 years, it has been the norm (consider early modern human remains found in China that are more consistent with European lineages, indicating trade between two widely different and geographically separated groups). In fact, a more plausible evolutionary story is that this is in fact one of the main reasons why we are so good at detecting cheaters. Trading within groups is fairly safe, because we have guarantees that group members will play by the rules (if they don't, they'll be ostracized or worse), while non-group members, with whom we had to trade on many occasions, could not be automatically trusted. As with his claim that the existence of social hierarchies makes capitalism difficult to comprehend, his arguments here have no real connection to his premises.

The lesson to be learned here, aside from reading about things you cite, is that unless one is willing to critically evaluate research, one shouldn't draw conclusions from it. Wilkinson, and most other non-psychologist EP fans seem to think that it is OK to take EP at its word, without deigning to evaluate the theories, research methods, or data. And what we get from them is the sort of nonsense that Wilkinson's essay represents so well.

(Link to Wilkinson's paper via Positive Liberty.)

27 comments:

Brandon said...

I don't have much taste for evolutionary psychology myself, but my guess for some possible reasons why non-psychologists get a taste for evolutionary psychology are:

(1) There's an impression that there's something vaguely sexy about it. If you look at seduction (player) communities on the web, both in forums and blogs, they eat it up precisely because they use it as a way to psyche themselves up for what they do. They're an extreme case, but I think they find it easy to do because there's a more general tendency to see it along those lines.

2) When you see accounts of evolutionary psychology in the general media, they always make it sound much simpler, more straightforward, and uncontroversial than it actually appears to be. So I think people don't wholly realize even some of the complications in that story that would be fairly obvious to those who actually were psychologists (there are some of them that psychologists probably take for granted that I certainly wouldn't have thought of before I started reading you).

3) For more philosophically sophisticated laity, like Wilkinson, an issue is possibly that it seems on the surface to hold the promise of a completely naturalistic, scientifically grounded, totally comprehensive account of human behavior. This is perhaps the more sophisticated thinker's (2).

But those are just guesses. It's always a bit of a puzzle about these things sometimes. Why, for instance, do undergraduate philosophy majors so often go through an existentialist phase (Camus and Sartre mostly) while in undergrad? (I was at a fairly small college, and I swear it seemed sometimes like I was the only philosophy student there who didn't.) I'd guess it's something analogous to the above three, but it's anybody's guess.

Chris said...

Brandon,
I went to graduate school in a department with one of the foremost evolutionary psychologists. Undergraduate psychology majors flocked to his courses like philosophy majors to a course on existentialist literature. I wasn't as disturbed by that as I was by the fact that so many of them came out of the course treating that particular EPist as a demigod, and EP research as gospel. There was absolutely no critical thought involved.

When they took my class, I invariably had at least 2 or 3 students who would come up to me after class, or during office hours, to discuss EP. I would point them to literature detailing the flaws in EP research (and there is a wealth of it), yet when it came time to write papers, they were inevitably written from an unquestioned EP perspective. It was incredibly frustrating. It's not that I expected them to decide EP was bunk, but I at least expected them to approach it critically.

And that is really the problem with lay treatments of EP, and even some treatments by scholars (like Pinker). The very fact that the Tooby and Cosmides Wason selection task experiments are still cited without citing a wealth of literature demonstrating the errors in their reasoning and methodology, demonstrates this. It's as if people were writing on physics, and discussing the speed of light in terms of Newtonian mechanics as if relativity had never existed.

Razib Khan said...

a few points

1) EP is "sexy" because i suspect it fills in the god-shaped-hole in the same way that marxism, feminism, evangelicalism, etc. do.

2) that being said, there is really dicey EP (why we like this type of art vs. that type of art), contentious, but fleshed out, models (the evolutionary origins of a "language organ") and other aspects which i think are pretty rock solid, like differential parental investment as a function of sex (which draws on trivers original work and takes data from many animal species as well as humans).

3) in the popular press the good, bad and disputable get mixed in together.

4) some people project the attributes of the good to the bad and disputable.

5) some people project the attributes of the bad to the good and disputable.

6) if people were as personally interested in the physics of quasars there would be a lot of shitty quasar pop physics out there too, other branches of cosmology would get frustrated that crappy quasar work got carried along under the wings of good quasar work because of its inherent sexiness vis-a-vi solid state work.

Chris said...

Razib,I definitely think we can learn a lot from comparative psychology, and even from thinking about evolution. In fact, at this point, the debate in linguistics over generativist vs. non-generativist theories, and particular types of generativist theories, is such a mess that one of the best ways to resolve it would be to show that certain types of language faculties are more likely to have evolved than others.

This, however, isn't what the bulk of EP is. I don't even consider most comparative psychology EP, and the evolution of language debate takes place largely outside of the field of EP, and using entirely different methods. I treat EP as emboding the definition used by Tooby and Cosmides, leading it to require massive modularity, and highly speculative stories about the evolutionary environments of our hominid anscestors. This is where things tend to go horribly wrong.

Razib Khan said...

I treat EP as emboding the definition used by Tooby and Cosmides, leading it to require massive modularity, and highly speculative stories about the evolutionary environments of our hominid anscestors. This is where things tend to go horribly wrong.yes, they have the "EP brand," so to speak. but i there are many thinkers who synthesize paleoanthropology, evolutionary biology, congitive science, human ethology and psychology who work outside of massive modularity, EEA and monomorphism on salient loci model.

if you are saying that Evolutionary Psychology is oversold, yeah, sure, i would agree. but the problem is that this leads many thinkers & observers to reject the insights that evolutionary biology can offer a priori because of negative assocations.

Anonymous said...

Chris,
Great post, keep up the good work. You said:

The very fact that the Tooby and Cosmides Wason selection task experiments are still cited without citing a wealth of literature demonstrating the errors in their reasoning and methodology, demonstrates this.Can you give me some references/leads to get started on finding this literature please? To confirm you concerns, i'm sad to say i've never seen it cited!

Thanks
Tom www.idiolect.org.uk

Anonymous said...

Well if you take a look at EP in Europe, you get the inverse picture (I can tell for Switzerland, France and Spain).It's very simple, you say human behaviour and evolution in the same sentence, you're a nazi. Indeed, the very few EP enthusiasts are mostly the Wilkinson types. Just take a look at the only EP "handbook" we have in french: "Why riches' wives are beautiful". (http://www.evopsy.org/index.php3)

Also, I have a hunch that EP success in the US classes may be analogous to the incredible enthusiasm psychoanalyis still drains in here among non-psychologists and students, perhaps for the very reasons Brandon proposes for EP, but i'm too tired to expand on this now...

Chris said...

Top, start with this paper by Scott Atran, and its references. From there, go to Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance Theory Explains the Selection Task. Cognition, 57, pp. 31–95. Also Sperber, D., & Girotto, V. (2002). Use or misuse of the selection task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides, and Tooby. Cognition, 85(3),277-90; Lloyd, E.A. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The Burdens of Proof. Biology and Philosophy, 14(2), 211 - 233; Fodor, J. (2000). Why we are so good at catching cheaters. Cognition, 83(2), 215-220; Lloyd, E.A., & Feldman, M.W. (2002). Evolutionary Psychology: A View From Evolutionary Biology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 150-156.

Anonymous said...

Nice post. It's certainly not my area, but I took a recent crack at armchair theorizing about (extrapolative) EP here: http://tinyurl.com/6k9oo

As for Wright's book, my impression was that you could read it in one of two ways: either a) taking Wright's qualifications and reservations seriously, in which case the book really is extremely speculative and often provides no sound basis for preferring his preferred explanations; or b) not taking Wright's qualifications and reservations seriously, in which case the book has a lot of gee-whiz moments, but is totally unserious.

Cheers.
Chris

JoshSN said...

If it proves their point, it will get funded.

This an actual sentence I've heard reported out of the mouths of the right-wing, ultra-con financed Regnery Press...

"We'd like you to write a book, and we want the title to be..."

Cato is funded by the same people.

Some jagoff read enough EP to become dangerous, and somehow the assignment was handed down to an incompetent stooge.

The title of the above book? "A Politicall Incorrect History of the United States" by Thomas Woods. Mostly garbage. And did Regnery edit? It seems the only rule they had was the precise word length, 80K.

Hoorah.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps it's the simplicity and intuitiveness of many of the explanations. Cheating is bad, and harmful, therefore it is adaptive for us to have evolved a mechanism for detecting it. That's pretty simple and intuitive, right?"
Well, no... if an adaptive behavior is effective, then it will either be copied or coped with some other way. A recent study of crows (a social animal in which families group together in larger communities) seems to indicate that a certain amount of stealing is acceptable, &/or less likely to be a problem if the the thief is related to the victim. The thing stolen must be valuable enough to merit the attempt, however, for it to be considered "successful"... A fair number of Wilkinson's premises seem to be at odds with some anthropological studies of hunter- gatherer communities of humans, too. He's a smooth and facile wordsmith, though- just don't look too deeply. (to quote Chubby Checker: EEA Twist! yeah, yeah Twist! come on, baby- & do the Twist! Let me take you by the hand- it goes like This- EEA 'round
*& 'round & 'round 'round we go-o-o-o)
^..^

Anonymous said...

Another possible reason why non-psychologists are so willing to accept the claims of evolutionary psychology is because so many of the evolutionary psychologists are absolutely certain that they're right, and those who disagree with them are fools, and/or just being "politically correct."

I recently had an email exchange with head EP Steven Pinker (The Blank Slate) - or Peter Frampton? (see last night's "Daily Show") and he discounted Stephen Jay Gould's objections to evolutionary psychology because of Gould's political views. Gould was an evolutionary biologist, and so instead of trying to deal with Gould's arguments, Pinker (a linguist) avoids that hassle by claiming that Gould is motivated purely by politics. Presumably Pinker has no political opinions - or feels that unlike Gould, he has the power to keep his politics and work separate.

These people are arrogant and shameless. For a well-written review of The Blank Slate, read Louis Menand's piece in the New Yorker, which you can find here:
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?critics/021125crbo_books

Menand isn't a scientist, but you don't need to be to find logical inconsistencies in the arguments of evolutionary psychologists.

Chris said...

nancy,
my own experience with EPs (Buss, whom I had to deal with far too often, Tooby and Cosmides, and several others), has been somewhat similar. I have never heard politics mentioned, but the dogmatic stance is unavoidably clear. It's really pretty sad, because some of these people are very smart, and would probably make good scientists if they were open to doubt.

As for Pinker, while I don't really think of him as the head of EP (hell, I don't even think of him as a scientist, but as a writer of science books... and he's a psychologist, by the way), because those in the EP field don't really refer to his work that often, my only personal encounter with him was unscientific (we talked about Umberto Eco... don't ask me why, because I don't remember), but in his actual scholarly writing (what little there really is), he's always aimed at the arguments, and while I usually disagree with him, unless he's writing with Jackendoff, I have never seen him do otherwise. Given the politics of his mentor, I'm genuinely surprised that he would criticize Gould's political biases, rather than his scientific arguments.

Chris Wilson said...

I'm willing to concede that EP can be pushed too far, and that it can be used inappropriately by laymen, but your critique of Wilkinson's article is generally off the mark. The only thing I can conclude is that you didn't get his central point. I've extended it a bit to see if I'm right.

http://www.enlightenedcaveman.com/2005/02/zero-sum-versus-wealth-creation.html

EC

Chris said...

EC, there's not much to respond to in your post, so I will just do so here:
1.) If the only thing that is natural is reciprocity, then systems of exchange like the free market should be pretty damn natural.
2.) If the only thing that is natural is reciprocity, then all of Wilkinson's other points are moot, aren't they?
3.) Since when is capitalism not inherently hierarchical, as a system? I don't recall Wilkinson saying any such thing, though.

Anonymous said...

OK Pinker is a psycholgist, but he focuses on language, and I think I saw him described as a linguist.

Please read the New Yorker article I linked to, for a sense of Pinker's attitude towards those who disagree with him. As Menand says:

"Pinker's idea is that it (human nature) explains much more than some people—he calls these people "intellectuals"—think it does, and that the failure, or refusal, to acknowledge this has led to many regrettable things, including the French Revolution, modern architecture, and the crimes of Josef Stalin. Intellectuals deny biology, according to Pinker, because it interferes with their pet theories of mind and behavior. These are the Blank Slate (the belief that the mind is wholly shaped by the environment), the Noble Savage (the notion that people are born good but are corrupted by society), and the Ghost in the Machine (the idea that there is a nonbiological agent in our heads with the power to change our nature at will). The "intellectuals" in Pinker's book are social scientists, progressive educators, radical feminists, academic Marxists, liberal columnists, avant-garde arts types, government planners, and postmodernist relativists. The good guys are the cognitive scientists and ordinary folks, whose common sense, except when it has been damaged by listening to intellectuals, generally correlates with what cognitive science has discovered. I wish I could say that Pinker's view of the world of ideas is more nuanced than this."

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?critics/021125crbo_books

Anonymous said...

As a layman, I find EP interesting specifically because it is not well founded. I'm not saying it is bad science, but rather that it is not saturated. I can engage in intellectual speculation of an interesting variety, without being slapped down by an appeal to authority. True, it is mental masturbation, but people generally masturbate because it is fun.

Njorl

MT said...

I'd like an answer to baal_shem_ra's question about Wright's book too. It doesn't really surprize me that no one's posted one already, because the attitude in play here is so dismissive toward EP. I have almost no idea what kind of work goes on under that rubric or what theories get attached to it, but I can't help feeling you guys are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Darwin was onto _something_, after all. I don't see how there's any escaping from selection and its effects, and hence from the conclusion that evolution, both cultural and biological, has something to do with our behaviors. You guys may be so biologically oriented from the outset that there's zero value added to your theories of mind by these basic ideas, but relative to pop cultural ideas of psychology and cognition, I think embracing these ideas can be profound and helpful. Unless of course I've been terribly confused by Wright's book, which is why I'm waiting for an answer to baal_shem_ra's question.

Chris said...

I just want to note that I haven't read Wright's book (and have no plans to do so in the near future), so I myself won't be able to comment on it. I generally try to stick to the peer-reviewed literature when it comes to sciences that are on shaky ground as it is.

MT said...

I loved that book. I can't recommend it highly enough. Especially to the extent that you want to position yourself as a critic of "evolutionary psychology," I'd have thought you'd want to familiarize yourself with what the label connotes to the ordinary person. The NY Times named it one of the (ten?) best books of whatever year it came out, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a big influence on the popular conception of EP. It also may be that Wright separates the wheat from the chaff of EP. He struck me as skeptical and on guard not to claim too much or too strongly.

Anonymous said...

You smart and buy Sword of the New World Vis, you play the game is right, Sword of the New World Gold. you have a wonderful time, buy vis, I have it cheap snw vis, I buy Sword of the New World money.
If you want to buy gold, you can Tibia Gold, because the game nice Tibia coins. Thanks for you buy Tibia money, you will find tibia gp, You are right Tibia Platinum,I am glad to see you.

Anonymous said...

Do you know tcos Gold? I like it.
My brother often go to the internet bar to buy chronicles of spellborn gol and play it.
After school, He likes playing games using these the chronicles of spellborn Gold with his friend.
I do not like to play it. Because I think that it not only costs much money but also spend much time. One day, he give me many tcos money and play the game with me.
I came to the bar following him and found chronicles of spellborn money was so cheap. After that, I also go to play game with him.
Do you know eve isk? I like it.
My brother often go to the internet bar to buy eve online isk and play it.
After school, He likes playing games using these buy isk with his friend.
I do not like to play it. Because I think that it not only costs much money but also spend much time. One day, he give me many cheap eve isk and play the game with me.
I came to the bar following him and found buy eve online isk was so cheap. After that, I also go to play game with him.

tennis racquets said...

Hi, I'm so glad to read your blog, I'm sure that you are very good at writing, and your articles are meaningful, I like them very much!
Recently, I want to buy excellent quality, low price classic prince tennis rackets, and I find many shops, where sell perfect tennis racquet. At the same time, in order to play the tennis and search the place where can buy the top-grade head tennis racket, I surf the net very often, and finally, I find thistennis shop. You can buy what you want in this store online.
Do you know ralph lauren outerwear? Do you want to be a focus no matter wherever you go? Follow me and you can chase the most popular red polo shirts. it can help you increase your attraction, you will be the most fashionable person wherever you go only if you wear attactive ralph lauren clothes.
Would you want to attracte others' eyes? If your answer is "Yes", you can wear north face jackets, in this beautiful season, you really need a suit of ralph lauren polo shirts
. They can make you become the attactive person.
top prince tennis racquets
classic head tennis racquet
superior wilson tennis racquets
babolat tennis racquets
head tennis racquets
babolat racquets
wilson tennis racquet
Abercrombie Fitch polo shirt
Abercrombie Fitch hoodile
charming north face jackets
polo woman shirt
lauren polo long sleeves shirts
cheap ralph lauren vest
polo men's jacket
yellow polo women's jacket
striped polo shirts
ralph lauren polo shirt
Ralph Lauren womens clothes
Lauren Polo pants

Anonymous said...

Is like being victim of a scam with those Generic Viagra Blue Pill announcements .

Unknown said...

Truly a nice blog! Thanks for your great work! Wish you a nice day!
cheap puma shoes
cheap sport shoes
ed hardy ugg boots
ed hardy love kills slowly boots
ed hardy love kills slowly
discount puma shoes
nike shox torch
nike tn dollar
cheap nike shox
ed hardy polo shirts
ed hardy love kills slowly shoes
ed hardy wear
cheap nike shox shoes
nike shox r4
ed hardy love kills slowly shirts
ed hardy trousers
ed hardy jackets
puma mens shoes
cheap nike max
discount nike shox
ed hardy t shirts sale
ed hardy womens t shirts
ed hardy boots
cheap puma ferrari shoes
nike mens shoes
nike shox nz
ed hardy womens clothes
ed hardy womens shirts
ed hardy clothes
discount nike running shoes
discount nike shoes
nike shox shoes
ed hardy outerwear
ed hardy womens
ed hardy womens jeans

aai333 said...

Nice article written by you
Nice cheap Nike dunk
articlediscount nike dunk
written nike dunk
bydiscount nike shoes
youcheap nike shoes
Christian Louboutin boots
Chloe outlet
cheap Chloe
discount Chloe
newest Chloe
Chloe bags 2010
Chloe totes
bape shoes
bape clothing
discount bape shoes
cheap bape shoes
bape jackets
wholesale ed hardy
ed hardy wholesale
discount ed hardy
Babyliss
Benefit GHD
MBT boots
MBT shoes in fashion
cheap mbt shoes sale
discount mbt outlet 2010
MBT Walking Shoes
MTB shoes

Unknown said...

Ed hardy streak of clothing is expanded into its wholesale ED Hardy chain so that a large number of fans and users can enjoy the cheap ED Hardy Clothes range easily with the help of numerous secured websites, actually, our discount ED Hardy Outlet. As we all know, in fact Wholesale Ed Hardy,is based on the creations of the world renowned tattoo artist Don Ed Hardy. Why Ed hardy wholesale? Well, this question is bound to strike the minds of all individuals. Many people may say cheap Prada shoes is a joke, but we can give you discount Prada Sunglasses , because we have authentic Pradas bags Outlet. Almost everyone will agree that newest Pradas Purses are some of the most beautiful designer handbags ( Pradas handbags 2010) marketed today. Now we have one new product: Prada totes. The reason is simple: fashion prohibited by ugg boots, in other words, we can say it as Cheap ugg boots or Discount ugg boots. We have two kinds of fashionable boots: classic ugg boots and ugg classic tall boots. Ankh Royalty--the Cultural Revolution. Straightens out the collar, the epaulette epaulet, the Ankh Royalty Clothing two-row buckle. Would you like to wear Ankh Royalty Clothes?Now welcome to our AnkhRoyalty Outlet. And these are different products that bear the most famous names in the world of fashion, like Ankh Royalty T-Shirt, by the way-Prada, Spyder, Moncler(Moncler jackets,or you can say Moncler coats, Moncler T-shirt, Moncler vest,and you can buy them from our discount Moncler outlet), GHD, ED Hardy, designer Sunglasses, Ankh Royalty, Twisted Heart.