MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – While I’m mostly persuaded (and intrigued) by the analysis of search data conducted by former Google engineer Seth Stephens-Davidowitz in his book Everybody Lies, some logical disconnects in his comments about porn-search data leave me scratching my head.

As Stephens-Davidowitz observed in an interview with Vox, surveys are a lousy means of learning about people’s sexual desires, fantasies and proclivities, because “people lie on sensitive topics such as sex.”

I also agreed with Stephens-Davidowitz when he said “Everybody is obsessed with sex. If they say they’re not, they’re lying” –- although the word “obsessed” might be a bit strong when coupled with a superlative like “everybody.”

Stephens-Davidowitz lost me, though, when he seemed to separate himself and the interviewer from the (seemingly quite inclusive) realm of everybody.

“There’s a lot of variation in what people like,” he said. “Probably 30 percent of people exclusively watch stuff that you would find disgusting.”

Wait a minute. If we’re all obsessed with sex and we’re all lying about what we like, then presumably we all like certain sexual things we wouldn’t admit to liking. If that’s the case, why would I be shocked, surprised or disgusted to find out other people are lying about liking the same sort of sick shit I’m lying about liking?

Further muddying the dishonest and disgusting sexual waters in which we all evidently swim is this pair of adjacent statements from the same interview.

“I think watching a porn video is a lot more telling than answering a survey question,” Stephens-Davidowitz said. “I agree you should be cautious in how you interpret it, though.”

So, it’s important to be cautious in how we interpret data –- but not so cautious as to prevent us from titling our book about how to interpret such data Everybody Lies?

Another thing bothers me here: This guy clearly is obsessed with obsession. Either that, or he thinks anytime someone wonders about something fundamental to their own sex life, it suggests an obsession on their part.

To wit, after noting the “number one question that women have about their husbands is whether he is gay,” and this question is “much higher in the Deep South, where my research suggests there are indeed more gay men married to women,” he went on to suggest there’s something wrong with women who are more likely to be married to closeted gay men wondering whether they are, in fact, married to closeted gay men.

“I think women are too obsessed with their husbands’ sexuality,” Stephens-Davidowitz said.

OK, so if I’m following you correctly, we’re all obsessed with sex, which is fine and something we should be more honest about, but women are too obsessed with their husbands’ sexuality, even when there’s geographically specific data suggesting their husbands’ sexuality doesn’t include wanting to fuck them?

Granted, Stephens-Davidowitz seems to be comparing wives’ obsessions with whether their husbands are gay with concern about whether their husbands are horribly depressed and/or constantly shitfaced, something about which women also should be concerned, I suppose.

“Women are eight times more likely to ask Google if their husband is gay than if he is an alcoholic and 10 times more likely to ask Google if their husband is gay than if he is depressed,” Stephens-Davidowitz noted. “It is far more likely that a woman is married to a man who is secretly an alcoholic or secretly depressed than secretly gay.”

As an aside, I’m thinking these women should be asking these questions to someone who knows their husband personally, instead of just lazily asking Google.

I mean, unless the guy has been searching using phrases like “what kind of shirt should I buy, because as you know I’m gay” or “where can I find some sick gay porn my poor, unsuspecting wife would be disgusted to learn I like to watch” and has indicated to Google it’s fine and dandy to tell his wife about those searches, it seems to me Google should mind its own damn business and keep its cyber-mouth shut.

Enough about the Deep South and women who think their husbands may be gay, though. Tell me more about how you derived your theories about sex, search data and obsession.

“Some sexual preferences I first learned about on The Jerry Springer Show, which featured really poor, uneducated people,” Stephens-Davidowitz said. “People attracted to animals or family members or the elderly. But, now from seeing porn data, I realize those preferences also exist among wealthy, educated people. Wealthy, educated people are more cognizant of contemporary social norms, which means if you have such an attraction, you hide it.”

Uh, dude, speaking of statistics, what percentage of people, even extremely poor and uneducated people, have ever been featured on the Jerry Springer Show?

At this point, I’m starting to think Stephens-Davidowitz is just trolling. You mean to tell me only wealthy, educated people don’t want people to know they’re sexually attracted to their Great Aunt Helga, who may also happen to be a sheep?

I think I have patience for one more point from this guy before I give up and go back to reading 1970s-era Marvel Comics as my primary source of cultural-anthropological theory.

“Sometimes I think it would be a good thing if everyone’s porn habits were released at once,” Stephens-Davidowitz said. “It would be embarrassing for 30 seconds. And then we’d all get over it and be more open about sex.”

That does it; Uncanny X-Men #116 here I come.