That's the whole point of the article. He's showing that research can easily be twisted to support one conclusion or the other, and that the standards for what conclusions are acceptable to draw from social sciences research is far too low. It is not that the stuff listed there is in any way the "absolute truth".
Except that he does imply in the conclusion to the article that they are reasonable conclusions to make. It's not just "twist to meet a predetermined conclusion", the author is actually saying that these are reasonable and plausible arguments. I'm saying that the first example isn't plausible because the quoted study is not representative of the argument being made. It's more a comment on spin-doctoring than quality of social psych research.
