Pseudopsychology Today? Probably. You haven't even scratched the surface there, really. The problem is that PT has hundreds of blogs (many of which don't last more than a few months) with very little editorial oversight or quality control. This results in it being a very mixed bag, albeit with a signal-to-bullshit ratio that's tilted toward the bullshit end of the spectrum. They have an affinity for pop-psych BS and have jumped heavily on the pop evo psych bandwagon, though. In addition Kanazawa, there's also Ogi Ogas of Survey Fail fame and Gad Saad. There are also a lot of good articles that are accessible to the layperson and they even carried some skeptical blogs like Massimo Pigliucci for some time. So I'd say go for it, if you want to, but it'll probably be a bit of a job with the diverse array of woo they promote.
I think I'll pass - as usually, I don't have much free time at the moment. Anyway, there's a guy called Gad Saad? O_o (It's the same in most Slavic languages.)
And apparently there are actual scholarly sources for its decay :D (via):
|The primary popular magazine whose title contains the word psychology, “Psychology Today, has a readership of more than 3 million people. Initiated in 1967, its early issues featured scientifically grounded and entertaining articles by eminent research psychologists, including Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, Nathan Azrin, Hans Eysenck, and David Lykken. Yet beginning in the 1970s and extending into the 1980s, Psychology Today shifted in content and style to appeal to a more general audience, featuring articles on such pop psychology topics as love, relationships, work, and happiness, most of them written by NON-EXPERTS from a largely NON-SCIENTIFIC perspective (Benjamin & Bryant, 1997). Despite a brief and ill-fated attempt by the APA to rehabilitate the magazine in 1983, Psychology Today’s LACK OF SCIENTIFIC RIGOR PERSISTS TODAY.” --Scott O. Lilienfeld. American Psychologist, Volume 67, No.2, “Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific”, pg. 119.|