The critique is of how Brooks handles reporting facts in general. The joke I quoted is based on a specific example Brooks gave, which is traced to its original source (Brooks mentioned one of the authors, Nisbett - see http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=478).
I linked to the other page because it contains links to about a dozen other posts looking into Brooks' writing.
There might be other evidence supporting his general point, but then he should be citing that evidence, not twisting the facts or making things up.
> When the psychologist Richard Nisbett showed Americans individual pictures of a chicken, a cow and hay and asked the subjects to pick out the two that go together, the Americans would usually pick out the chicken and the cow.
I meant that Nisbett's name was mentioned in the column (regarding the farm animals, yes), and that this allowed the study with underwater scenes to be found, namely http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11708567.
Besides other responses, language log is not a reliable source. I stopped reading when I got bored of the intentional misreading and mockery they use to position themselves as smarter than everyone.
I linked to the other page because it contains links to about a dozen other posts looking into Brooks' writing.
There might be other evidence supporting his general point, but then he should be citing that evidence, not twisting the facts or making things up.