But there’s one aspect of mainstream media bullshit that seems to fly under the radar of our outrage: relationship advice. For every article that recommends we eat “superfoods” to detox our systems there are five others that give us instructions on how to establish the perfect relationship, have the best sex, and live happily ever after. What’s more, many of them purport to tell you the science of dating or the formula for the perfect chat-up line.While perhaps not as vital as the fight against health quackery or climate change denial, it surprises me that the flaws and faults of mainstream relationship advice – usually just old wives’ tales dressed up as biological facts – so frequently go unchallenged.First up: generalisation from a small sample. Decent studies refrain from making sweeping declarations if their sample is too small to support their conclusions. A conclusion is more likely to read “mating females in a sample of 3% of the parrot population tend to favour males with bright plumage” than “girl parrots will GO WILD for multicoloured males!”Relationship advice, on the other hand, screams absolutes no matter how little data the authors have. I recently received an email advertising a site that claimed to give me the “science” behind dating – by “science” it looked like they meant a survey they did of 100 single women. From this tiny sample not only did they draw conclusions like “all women want you to text back within 48 hours” but also that they could tell which of the survey respondents was a “hot babe”.In a recent advice article for men, authors of dating book The Rules explained that “[Women] secretly love this stuff!!” That term “Women” is pretty universal, although instead of citing a dubious tiny-sample study, they’ve gone with the persuasive “double exclamation point” trick – like a Daily Express journalist using caps-lock to convince us that “BROCCOLI CURES CANCER”.If a dating guru wants to back up their universal assertions, one of their main tricks will be an appeal to authority. Getting a qualification as a “relationship expert” is easier than getting your dead cat certified as a nutritionist, and relationship advice is littered with dubious “gurus” aplenty, or vague statements that helpfully inform us that “doctors agree”. Take a look at your average dating site, and you’ll see that if you put the word “love” after it, pretty much anyone can call themselves “doctor”.In an addendum to The Rules, our heroines inform us that “Since The Rules was published, we’ve received dozens of letters from psychotherapists and social workers saying that they agree with The Rules.” Like a hair product or moisturiser that says it’s “scientifically proven”, they’re disappointingly light on the detail.If a self-appointed expert isn’t enough to convince you, then let’s see whether you find this one story about my friend persuasive. Anecdotal evidence is always popular - whether it’s Peter, who managed to overcome his fears about talking to women after reading The Game, or a few quotes on a forum for pick-up artists assuring us that this magic method helped our hero get laid three nights in a row, honest. The anecdotal evidence of dating advice is rarely challenged in the same way as we’d challenge it elsewhere, despite it often being the only evidence that the expert is willing to present.If the evidence is challenged, ad hominem attacks are the go-to weapon of choice. When I joked about some relationship tips on Twitter, questioning whether opening all the doors for me was really a deal-breaking quality in a man, a die-hard Rules fan responded to me:“Women who don’t expect this from a guy have never experienced true interest from a man.”This, roughly translated, means that I have never experienced true interest and am therefore probably ugly. No man will ever open doors for me, and I will be stuck forever in my lounge, pawing at the handle in a desperate and ultimately futile attempt to leave the room.If ad hominem fails, one can always try scaremongering. After all, you wouldn’t want to fail miserably and live horribly ever after, would you? Like homeopaths who tell us modern medicine will cause more harm than good, relationship experts play heavily on our fears. Tips and tricks aren’t just “helpful”, they’re portrayed as the only possible way to succeed. Not following them is the equivalent to accepting that you want to be alone forever.Of course, the final and most important weapon in the dubious “expert” arsenal is to claim any outcome as proof that their theory is true. Your feeling of vague unease went away? The magic beans worked. Unpredictable storms? Scientists don’t know anything about the climate. Found a fossil? God put it there.Our dating advice experts are no different. “If you feel annoyed by what we have listed we have an answer,” declare the Rules Girls, “You probably just don’t like her enough. You can argue but we won’t agree!” The theory remains firm, despite any contradictory evidence, because if for some reason you don’t want to follow whatever the advice is – if a guy wants a partner who will split the bill rather than screech at him to open his wallet – then the problem lies with him rather than the dating gurus. He doesn’t like the girl enough, he didn’t follow the instructions properly, and he wasn’t concentrating when our healer waved the magic wand.I’ve focused on The Rules because they’re one of the most well-known. But the Rules Girls shouldn’t bear the blame for this; once you’ve started noticing it you’ll realise that this stuff is everywhere. From websites offering Ten Guaranteed Ways To Find Love to books that helpfully explain the “science” of picking up women.It’s not as if this onslaught of dubious info will prevent us from doing what’s natural – meeting people and having relationships with them – but it certainly hurls a few obstacles in the way of people who might be struggling. What’s more, it matters because all such misinformation matters: it demonstrates to people that you can package waffle as wisdom and make money from it. It teaches us that anecdotal evidence, vague appeals to authority and ad hominem are perfectly valid ways to win an argument. And above all it matters because it paints a skewed and inaccurate picture of reality: in which women want nothing more than a free lunch and an open door, and men must jump through hoops and clap their flippers like performing seals in order to secure a gesture of love.So, a call to action: next time you read an article that claims to reveal a secret dating formula, or read a study that tells you what all men want based on a sample of “some people we talked to in the pub”, tackle them as you would your local homeopath: ask for evidence, challenge poor arguments, and call them on this irrational bullshit.(theguardian.com)ANN.Az