More on Watson’s talk and evolutionary psychology

In just the past two days, Rebecca Watson’s Skepticon 5 talk and Ed Clint’s critique (and to a lesser extent my post) have generated a lot of online discussion. In no particular order: John Wilkins has weighed in here and also tweeted this post; both strike me as worth reading (which isn’t to say I agree with everything in them; I obviously disagree with Wilkins’ comments on Dawkins).

Dan Fincke recommend my post on Facebook, generating a long comment thread. Dan makes some good points about Watson’s “so boring” answer to the question she got at the end of her talk:

The full quote:

“Probably? I’m guessing yes, but it’s so boring, because you can only make it interesting if you make up everything. Because, really, good evolutionary psychology would be more like, “Well, we don’t really know what happened in the Pleistocene, and we have no evidence for this, but maybe this. It’s not the sort of thing that makes headlines. So if there is good evolutionary psychology, it’s not in the media, and therefore, it might as well not exist as far as the general public is concerned.”

So, there are no interesting results in evolutionary psychology. Therefore we can only make stuff up. Really good evolutionary psychology would admit we have no evidence for anything and have no knowledge of the Pleistocene and are just shooting hypotheses. 

Where is the qualification there? Where is the limiting to “Bad science reporting by the media”. This is when asked if there is any good evo psych. She admits she has no idea if any such good science exists and explains that any such good science would be just confessions of profound ignorance, no evidence, no interesting results, and so too boring for the media to report.

In response, Stephanie Zvan said:

No, and I’m not sure how you get that. She’s saying that good evolutionary psychologists would be up front about what they do and don’t know and how strong their evidence is (not very for most things, as it’s a fairly new and very complicated discipline) and that this wouldn’t make for exciting press coverage.

This strikes me as more nuanced than what Watson actually said. As Dan explains (I’ve added a paragraph break to this quote):

Then I would think she could say something like this, “Good evolutionary psychology would patiently first figure out what was genetically determined or determinable, would replicate its studies cross-culturally, would find evidence that patterns were repeated in our own history and generate interesting results worth reporting on in the media. Since I haven’t researched whether any evolutionary psychologists have managed in fact to do such due diligence, I cannot speak to whether it exists.”

That would be an endorsement of evo psych as a possible science with the possibility it actually has achieved results. Instead she gave the impression that the GOOD evo psych cannot do anything more than offer hypotheses and confessions that they lack evidence based on how we know nothing of what went down in the Pleistocene. She didn’t explain how patient evo psych could develop robust, multi-sourced evidence BEFORE announcing any conclusions–just like other sciences do. She gave the impression they would have to prematurely be coming forward with confessions there’s “no evidence” instead of have initially qualified results that over time can more and more confirmed and turn into interesting science–and that this further development may have actually already happened.

James Croft has also weighed in, criticizing Watson’s talk to an extent but also arguing that calling it “science denialism” (as Clint did) or “awful” (as I did) is excessive. To respond to that: when I was writing my post, I tried to hunt down some quotes made in the context of the evolution/creationism debate explaining why being sloppy about bad popular reporting of the field vs. the field itself is not OK. After not finding those quotes, I decided not to get into the comparison with creationism and went with the neuroscience example instead. The comparison with creationism seemed just a little too easy.

That said, the closest non-hypothetical, non-evo psych analogs to the kind of sloppiness I saw in Watson’s talk I can think of are definitely from outright science denialists. I think of Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution, which tries to attack evolutionary biology by attacking bad high school textbooks. Not a perfect analogy, but it seems to me that the parallels to science denialism are definitely there.

I really would like to know what James would think of a talk like Watson’s about neuroscience–or, since I’ve brought the subject up, evolutionary biology itself, or global warming, or any other common target of science denialists. James emphasizes that Watson wasn’t delivering a paper at an academic conference, but rather giving “funny talk for Skepticon’s audience.” Well, I certainly don’t expect academic papers at a conference like Skepticon, but I do expect talks to be up to the standards of responsible popular science writing, which in my view Watson’s talk wasn’t.

James wrote a follow-up post where he makes a very important point:

This responsibility goes beyond the basic concern for truth which must be the bedrock of all communication which aims to educate. Obviously a writer is responsible for ensuring that the data they present is as accurate as possible, for organizing the data in a way which is not misleading, and for generally guiding the audience to understanding. But they also need to be careful to pitch their material at  level appropriate to their audience, to think of the audience’s likely prior experiences and to take those into account, and to always ask “Will I likely be misunderstood?”

This last is critical: when writing – either for print or presentation – it is essential to put oneself in the shoes of the audience. The question should not be “Do understand what I mean?” but “How might they understand what I have said?” Much miscommunication can be avoided if people take the opportunity to give their presentation before a critical test-audience and ask them how they understood it. Sometimes the results are surprising. I give a very large number of public presentations, and I’m frequently amazed that things I say are understood in the way that they are. “How could you think I meant that?”, I sometimes find myself wondering.

This is why I have such a big problem with William Lane Craig. When Craig claims that all the major points of the Biblical stories of Jesus’ resurrection are “facts,” you can try to be charitable and interpret that as merely a slightly obnoxious rhetorical excess. But the reality is that people who haven’t studied Biblical scholarship (i.e. most of Craig’s audience) are going to hear that and conclude Craig’s “facts” have been proven to the satisfaction of virtually all Biblical scholars–which is wildly untrue. With Craig I’m convinced this is deliberate. Watson’s similarly misleading claims may be due just to laziness, but they’re still a big problem.

Not that I think all of the problems with Watson’s talk can be written off as mere miscommunications. For example, she’s just plain wrong when she claims that evolutionary psychology holds that human brains stopped evolving after the Pleistocene. There’s no way to interpret that where it comes out true. But in other cases where her claims may be technically true, they’re still egregiously misleading.

For example, when Watson delivers her “…and it got published” punchline to the story of Ramachandran’s attempt at a Sokal-style hoax, most of the audience isn’t going to know that the journal it got published in wasn’t an evo psych journal, and was in fact already known for its lax standards. The audience is going to assume Watson is telling the story because it tells us something about the standards of mainstream evo psych journals, which it doesn’t. She’s misleading her audience, and it’s that kind of thing that makes me comfortable saying the talk was awful.

That’s all for now, but I’ll likely have another post or two on evolutionary psychology coming up in the future.

  • http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

    For the record, everyone who does EP knows purported adaptations have to be cross-culturally valid. The people that tend to do the cross-cultural stuff are anthropologist evo psych researchers- which is to say, me and those like me. I’m involved in such a project right now.

    Genetic determinability is built-in to the definition of “adaptation”. There are several ways to evaluate adaptation hypotheses without calling up a geneticist, which nobody generally does. Not in EP and not in evolutionary biology either, but I think we shant tell Darwin to F off over it.

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/ Daniel Fincke

      Ed, by genetic determinability, the question being asked is whether we can actually identify which genes are responsible for which traits that evo psych is claiming are genetically based. Are evo psych predictions about correlations being genetically coded rather than culturally developed borne out with demonstrated connections between specific genes and supposedly evolved behaviors?

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/noelplum99 noelplum99

        Maybe you could help me understand your question for Ed a little better, as it is a request i have seen elsewhere and don’t fully understand.
        Aside from the fact it seems to be a conditional that is generally not set elsewhere (this demand ‘show me the gene’, like some kind of literal genetic habeas corpus) for evolutionary explanations, i have to ask if it is even a reasonable request?
        What if the trait is simply caused by an allele that expresses differently in different environments, either during development, or indirectly in the different hormonal environments the resultant maturing brain may find itself in?
        My understanding of evo devo is, I readily admit, limited to just a few popular books but it gives me enough inkling to ask you why you can dismiss the idea that the conditions under which a gene is transcribed could as easily be what is at stake rather than there being easily discernable alleles that signpost why ‘men do x and women do y’ or whatever the claim of the day is? It seems to me that any behaviour that IS genetically predisposed but manifests only in a specific hormonal environment (in an adult, for example) would be very very difficult to pin down and that any demand that this requirement must be met would be somewhat unreasonable.
        I don’t know: your thoughts?
        Jim

      • baal

        You can know some thing (a behavior or a physical structure) is genetically controlled without knowing which genes are directly responsible. Different dog breeds have rather specific temperaments that are part of the package that the breed was bread for. I don’t think anyone has been able to show that just 1 gene (or gene set) or 1 mutation (or set of mutations) is responsible to tenaciousness in pitbulls or intelligence in poodles. If you can breed for it, it’s genetic.
        The equivalent test in people is to wash out cultural influences and then see what’s left to attribute to biology. Twins who are raised apart can help as well but the numbers of subjects in those studies is low (only so many twins in the world and most are reared together). Cross cultural studies are another.
        It bears mention that a better model to consider is that the genes set a range on what is possible and environment tweak to specific points in the range. Your genetics more or less limit your oxygen transfer efficiency but whether or not you train physically determines if your O2 efficiency. You could have the genes of a marathon runner but having not ever run more than 1 block, you’d never know it.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/noelplum99 noelplum99

          I uploaded a video a few days ago that suggested another related experiment that i felt would be enlightening wrt some aspects under consideration.
          It is known that common chimps and bonobo have very different social structures, chimps being highly patriarchal and bonobo almost matriarchal in their setup. So my idea would be to raise an entire generation of chimps to behave like bonobo, introducing them to one another to see a) if it is possible in the first place to even create a bonobo-like common chimp troop and b) to see if the structure would be, effectively, an evolutionarily stable strategy and perpetuate down the generations.
          I feel, given our relatedness to these apes, learning this about their degree of potential malleability would give us a new insight into our own.
          Jim.

          • Anna Nimus

            That kind of reminds me of a similar experiment I saw attempted on the Animal Channel in which wolf cubs were raised right alongside domesticated dog puppies and the similarities in behavior only lasted for about the first 8 weeks, after that, something always seemed to trigger in the wolf cubs that made them more “wild” and defiant to the humans, and less social and courteous with the domesticated dogs. Seemed no amount of environmental saturation could prevent that change from happening.

  • Karmakin

    I think that Croft’s follow-up post really hits on the heart of the matter, or at least how I see it. It isn’t even just some amount of recklessness that results in not wanting to make sure that one isn’t misunderstood, it’s the belief that being misunderstood is a fundamental flaw entirely the fault of the listener and as such they should learn to listen better or need “better” background information or whatever.

    Being accurate and conveying accurate information is important if one’s goal is to achieve positive change in the world, (although we can disagree with what is positive) as even if we agree on what a particular problem is, disagreements about the nature and particulars of a problem often do result in requiring entirely different solutions.

    • DR

      I think there’s a bigger problem when it comes to RW: she doesn’t really seem to care whether what she says is accurate; it’s rhetoric, not communication. She’s an activist, not a scientist. Her attacks on EvoPsych are not really based on whether EvoPsych presents adequate evidence for its claims; she just dislikes the claims from a political standpoint. She may, of course, be entirely correct in her critique. But she can’t claim to be correct because she has evidence to back her claims up. She attacks, confident that since her political point of view *must* be true, the evidence *must* be out there somewhere to back her up. She’s a true believer in her cause; even if you came up with the most solid evidence that women, for example, are more prone to shopping because of evolutionary reasons, she would reject it because it doesn’t fit her worldview. (Note that I’m not claiming such evidence exists; I’m personally skeptical of much of what the EvoPsych advocates advance, but two wrongs don’t make a right).

      • BKsea

        I think DR nails it here. This is a classic case of confirmation bias on the part of Watson. And that is the foremost hallmark of a denialist. It is entirely possible that she is correct in her thesis, but she is still behaving like a denialist rather than a skeptic. In the end, her arguments are so easily eviscerated that her talk makes EvoPsych look better not worse.

        All in all, I think this is a fascinating case for the skeptic community. It always pays to look at the message not the messenger.

      • Laurence

        I don’t think this holds up to the evidence based on her comments on Almost Diamonds in response to some of the errors that Ed pointed out. She said that she was going to correct them, so that ives us at least some good reason to think that she cares about the truth.

  • jose

    “For example, she’s just plain wrong when she claims that evolutionary psychology holds that human brains stopped evolving after the Pleistocene.”

    “The programs that comprise the human brain were sculpted over evolutionary time by the ancestral environments and selection pressures experienced by the hunter-gatherers from whom we are descended … To be a plausible model of how the mind works, any hypothetical domain-general cognitive would have had to reliably generate solutions to all of the problems that were necessary for survival and reproduction in the Pleistocene.”
    From the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology.

    “Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.”
    From the authors of that book.

    “I’ve had to question the overall assumption that human evolution pretty much stopped by the time of the agricultural revolution. When I wrote these passages, completion of the Human Genome Project was several years away, and so was the use of statistical techniques that test for signs of selection in the genome … If these results hold up, and apply to psychologically relevant brain function, … then the field of evolutionary psychology might have to reconsider the simplifying assumption that biological evolution was pretty much over and done with 10-000 — 50,000 years ago.”
    From Steven Pinker.

    • J. J. Ramsey

      I presume that you already read the part of the Evolutionary Psychology FAQ that reads, “Q: Why couldn’t humans have evolved during the last 10,000 years? A: They could, but not much. … Scientifically, 10,000 years (500 generations) is not much time for natural selection to act, and it certainly is not enough time to evolve new, complex adaptations—sophisticated mechanisms coded for by numerous genes. ”

      As for your last quote from Steven Pinker, note that he used the phrase “simplifying assumption.” That’s a phrase typically used of assumptions that are known to be approximate but simplify formulations. Indeed that’s implied when Pinker adds the hedge words “pretty much.” Without that hedging, Pinker would have said something grossly false.

  • jose

    As for the Ramachandran study, is the idea that a ridiculous study couldn’t have made it into a peer-reviewed, serious journal? That such dismal studies are not routinely published? Here’s one that’s quite more embarrassing than the Ramachandran one, and it was published in Psychological Science, self-described as “the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology, is a peer-reviewed monthly journal with cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology”. Do you think she’s not going to get laughs when she explains the part where the men are given the smelly t-shirts?

    Credit where it’s due, though. There’s another ev psych study that debunks this one by replicating the experiment but controlling whether it was the stink or the t-shirts that gave men the hots. Turns out it was the t-shirts, because they made the men think of actual women. Turns out heterosexual men are attracted to women. That’s quite amazing, wouldn’t you say?

    • J. J. Ramsey

      As for the Ramachandran study, is the idea that a ridiculous study couldn’t have made it into a peer-reviewed, serious journal?

      No, it’s that Watson presented the study as if it had gotten into an evo-psych journal when it hadn’t.

      • jose

        So you’re concerned that the example wasn’t an accurate representation of how lax standards are in this discipline. Then, I encourage you to write her an email telling her “that example you gave isn’t funny enough because the journal had too-lax standards. Here’s another shoddy study that got published in a rigorous, prestigious psychology journal, and it involves smelly t-shirts from menstruating women.” And then add the link I gave in my comment. Personally I think it’s funnier than the blondes one, one because it’s damned creepy, two because the authors were for real. So maybe Watson should amend her talk to include this one instead. Would you be happy then?

        Mind you, that’s being extra-rigurous with the examples, because prestigious psychology journals like the one I linked are more strict than your garden variety evo psych journal.

        • almost ambitious

          She was misleading her audience which is kind of not good. If there was a more representative example out there then would it really have been so difficult for her to use that instead?

          • jose

            So be constructive and tell her how she can improve her talk by mentioning that study instead, which is even funnier and it was published in a much more prestigious journal. It will make her case stronger, not weaker.

  • Hunt

    It would be a lot clearer if the Watson/Myers/Zvan side settled on a unified response to the criticism. Zvan has opened with the “pop” defense, which PZ and then Watson endorsed in a comment while traveling. The pop defense would probably suffice, but I think Watson is going to need to make that explicit. Meanwhile, Myers now seems to have launched an offensive against the entire EP discipline, as if he never thought the pop defense was warranted. As usual FtB has totally confused me.

  • Pingback: The substantive issue in the evolutionary psychology debate: innate difference between men and women

  • Jean Kazez

    I should probably leave Watson’s defense to Watson, but I really think that “boring” quote has been misunderstood. You have to understand it in the context of the talk. The way I hear it, the talk is about us, and how media and bad science bring us fake “news” about gender differences, and how all this creates stereotype threat, which hinders women. So when she’s asked whether there’s any good EP at the end, and she says (roughly) “yes, but it’s boring and it may as well not exist”, the point is that the careful, academic EP in journals isn’t involved in the whole process her talk was about–the process whereby media and bad science transmit silly gender difference messages that put women under stereotype threat.

    • almost ambitious

      Yes but that’s not what she said; she didn’t say good evo-psych went unreported she said it may as well not exist because it couldn’t produce meaningful explanations – this is clearly a reference to the field of evo-psych rather than reporting of that field, and it’s at best problematic in its ignorance of the subject she’s giving a talk on and at worst it’s disingenuous.
      Also, the media doesn’t talk about the ‘boring’ bits of any academic discipline if they have a choice in the matter. This doesn’t mean we dismiss the whole of law, medicine, physics, biology, history, chemistry…

      • Jean Kazez

        But…that’s not a quote. She doesn’t in fact say “it may as well not exist because it couldn’t produce meaningful explanations”! She says “it’s not in the media, and therefore, it might as well not exist as far as the general public is concerned.” Why does she say that? Given the whole speech, it seems reasonably clear. The speech is about the impact of bad science/bad media on women. The stuff that doesn’t appear in the media has no impact. She’s essentially saying–that stuff isn’t my topic, it isn’t what I’m pointing to as harming women.

  • http://twitter.com/blamer @b

    I certainly don’t expect academic papers at a conference like Skepticon, but I do expect talks to be up to the standards of responsible popular science writing…

    Expectations need resetting. Brian Dunning was once very clear that his skeptiod talks aren’t about teaching listeners how to approach the topic at hand (in Watson’s skepticon case, evo psych) so much as they’re about demonstrating *one* skeptical approach to said topic.

    Perhaps each skepticon talk (blog etc) needs such a disclaimer.

    We aren’t scientific experts nor educators nor communicators about any topic –let alone sexism– with the possible exception of Skepticism itself.

    And those backing their own personal meta-analysis over today’s scientific consensus (on evo psych, for example) are failing to demonstrating the key lesson for the next generation of advocates for scientific skepticism: trust the god damned experts.

  • Pingback: yellow october

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: define conflict resolution

  • Pingback: xxxcams.mobi

  • Pingback: kangen water machine

  • Pingback: alkaline water benefits

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: powerbank

  • Pingback: Pet Grooming Franchise

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: gioco azzardo

  • Pingback: porno scat

  • Pingback: scopate con animali

  • Pingback: marijuana onine

  • Pingback: CMS

  • Pingback: timo

  • Pingback: dentist Santa Monica

  • Pingback: Avoid bankruptcy

  • Pingback: Avoid bankruptcy

  • Pingback: Cashcashcash

  • Pingback: earn extra cash $$$

  • Pingback: Cashcashcash

  • Pingback: code de la route

  • Pingback: Freebies

  • Pingback: cleaner

  • Pingback: colombian mail order brides

  • Pingback: colombian brides

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos

  • Pingback: blog mode

  • Pingback: aqui

  • Pingback: Actor Pictures

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: sell my Portland house quick

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: sell my Portland house quick

  • Pingback: spam

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: sell your house quickly

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions

  • Pingback: pikavippi.fi

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions

  • Pingback: BDSwiss echt

  • Pingback: recover panda hack method

  • Pingback: for help with claims

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: Call Frost & Remer at (734) 782-2411

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos

  • Pingback: Flat Rock business insurance provider

  • Pingback: Frost & Remer Insurance (734) 782-2411

  • Pingback: how to make money with clickbank

  • Pingback: taco man long beach

  • Pingback: life insurance provider in Flat Rock

  • Pingback: Payday loans Nevada

  • Pingback: yoga retreat bali

  • Pingback: party rentals

  • Pingback: sex toys

  • Pingback: sex toys

  • Pingback: germes-trans.company

  • Pingback: binaryoptionstradingx.com

  • Pingback: minoxidil brasil

  • Pingback: blood tests

  • Pingback: Videos Porno

  • Pingback: binary options trading x

  • Pingback: personal training

  • Pingback: personal training

  • Pingback: Fake Steroids Canada

  • Pingback: personal training

  • Pingback: northpark residences

  • Pingback: Teragon labs

  • Pingback: whore

  • Pingback: FAKE TERAGON LABS

  • Pingback: Western and Sunset Appliance

  • Pingback: appliance service in Los Angeles

  • Pingback: std testing

  • Pingback: vinyl repair

  • Pingback: furniture repair

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: dontpayfull

  • Pingback: xenical

  • Pingback: masöz izmir

  • Pingback: masöz

  • Pingback: masöz izmir

  • Pingback: masöz

  • Pingback: XXX

  • Pingback: poker

  • Pingback: Hollywood insight

  • Pingback: Vacation St.lucia

  • Pingback: check more out

  • Pingback: 411-pain

  • Pingback: Epson & Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons, Epson and Sons, Epson and Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons Appliance Repair (562) 200-0545, (562) 200-0545, Epson and Sons (562) 200-0545, appliance repair in Long Beach, Long Beach appliance rep

  • Pingback: Epson & Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons, Epson and Sons, Epson and Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons Appliance Repair (562) 200-0545, (562) 200-0545, Epson and Sons (562) 200-0545, appliance repair in Long Beach, Long Beach appliance rep

  • Pingback: cheap facebook fans

  • Pingback: m88

  • Pingback: storage auctions

  • Pingback: scottsdale nail salons

  • Pingback: Dong to USD

  • Pingback: pénznemek szimbólumai

  • Pingback: buy dong online

  • Pingback: lose weight fast

  • Pingback: psn code generator

  • Pingback: buy dong online

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Glenshaw Appliance Repair Experts

  • Pingback: Long Beach dishwasher repair

  • Pingback: Alhambra appliance service

  • Pingback: Alhambra appliance repair company

  • Pingback: refrigerator repair in Alhambra

  • Pingback: 411-pain

  • Pingback: our site

  • Pingback: Usenet kostenlos

  • Pingback: our site

  • Pingback: opgelicht

  • Pingback: Bushnell Oak

  • Pingback: viagra sex

  • Pingback: Home Improvement

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: donate money

  • Pingback: masaj antalya

  • Pingback: trail

  • Pingback: centre de parachutisme soulac

  • Pingback: fmtrader نصب

  • Pingback: fmtrader نصب

  • Pingback: fmtrader نصب

  • Pingback: best water ionizer

  • Pingback: colon cleanse reviews

  • Pingback: escape room singapore

  • Pingback: pinganillo

  • Pingback: colon cleanse and garcinia cambogia

  • Pingback: escape games singapore

  • Pingback: wooden hot tubs

  • Pingback: cisco

  • Pingback: sexo gratis

  • Pingback: maximum shred

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: sourcefire

  • Pingback: masquerade masks for men

  • Pingback: orjinal lida

  • Pingback: images

  • Pingback: 411 pain twitter

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: sex in cebu

  • Pingback: parachutisme soulac

  • Pingback: saut en parachute soulac

  • Pingback: casino

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: Los Angeles legal recruiter

  • Pingback: angel medflight

  • Pingback: flyambu

  • Pingback: air ambulance card

  • Pingback: maduras

  • Pingback: foro atletico madrid

  • Pingback: lida

  • Pingback: pizza vesoul

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: orjinal lida

  • Pingback: http://www.taigamebigone.mobi

  • Pingback: http://www.kutahyasanaltur.com

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: http://www.taigamebigone.mobi

  • Pingback: Agua Dulce News Paper

  • Pingback: online porn

  • Pingback: custom home building

  • Pingback: interior bedroom design uae

  • Pingback: vegans lie

  • Pingback: pebble tiles

  • Pingback: standing pebble tile

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: Bedbug

  • Pingback: consumerhealthdigest.com

  • Pingback: novelty techpoint

  • Pingback: Valencia, CA News Paper

  • Pingback: best condo

  • Pingback: Botanique at bartley

  • Pingback: muslim marriage events

  • Pingback: chicago sex crimes lawyer

  • Pingback: brisdelle

  • Pingback: Crime scene clean up

  • Pingback: Crown at Robinson

  • Pingback: náhradní díly

  • Pingback: grants

  • Pingback: grants

  • Pingback: Sexo Gay

  • Pingback: Crime scene cleaners

  • Pingback: sexy teen fuck

  • Pingback: masaj

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: bd swiss demo

  • Pingback: zbita szyba

  • Pingback: interior design portal singapore

  • Pingback: bdswiss steuern

  • Pingback: iphone uzywany

  • Pingback: Videos Porno

  • Pingback: pizza vesoul

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: Oakland County MI Small Company Loans

  • Pingback: Clarkston, Michigan Small Company Lending

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: Schlüsseldienst Düsseldorf

  • Pingback: Clarkston, Michigan Small Company Lending

  • Pingback: Small Business Loans

  • Pingback: How To Get A Small Company Loan Approved Promptly

  • Pingback: Risky Industry Small Business Lending

  • Pingback: free rape porn

  • Pingback: spam viagra

  • Pingback: cebu prostitution

  • Pingback: war

  • Pingback: hd porn

  • Pingback: buy prostitute online

  • Pingback: penis enlargement pills

  • Pingback: buy viagra online

  • Pingback: folletos publicitarios

  • Pingback: url shortener

  • Pingback: facial serum

  • Pingback: Ogrodzenia Plastikowe

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: Poker Automatics, pokeram

  • Pingback: dui defense attorney dauphin county

  • Pingback: code promo

  • Pingback: xxx


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X