You can't just link to a paper (behind a pay-wall, of all things) and expect me to find the relevant part! Explain why it's relevant. I just spent 20 minutes reading that paper ಠ_ಠ and I see no evidence to support the argument. The paper I linked to by the same author explicitly contradicts it:
>The tendency of Europeans and their descendants to be fearful of spiders does not seem to be shared by people in many non-European cultures, and this is not consistent with those evolutionary accounts of spider fear which suggest that spider fear should be a common feature of the human gene pool regardless of culture (e.g. Seligman, 1971). However, it is consistent with the present thesis which argues that spider fear developed as a result of the association between spiders and disease in Europe after the tenth century
It's not a real citation if it doesn't support the point.
Linking to a paper and hoping people believe it supports you because it's a paper is poor form. I expect people to be able to analyze their citations - that's pretty standard practice.
