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 <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu&#x2F;nll&#x2F;?p=478" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu&#x2F;nll&#x2F;?p=478</a>).<p>I linked to the other page because it contains links to about a dozen other posts looking into Brooks&#x27; writing.<p>There <i>might</i> be other evidence supporting his general point, but then he should be citing that evidence, not twisting the facts or making things up.