===================================== 
=============== 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.]