Talk:Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Gotta suspect this one[edit]

APA is not really a pseudo-journal publisher, and while the referenced paper exists, it's the only Kierkegaard piece in the publication's history. And most of their publications don't seem that bad. Most.

If our case for missionality is "Kirkegaard publishes there" one paper as second author is a fucking weak-ass case. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, got nuked while I was looking into it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It's really unacceptable for you to describe this journal as publishing pseudoscience. You take that back. 170.246.152.82 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
One, if you're gonna change your IP instantly, don't do the dead giveaway of making your first post be complaining about the same thing that got you banned. Two, are you capable of reading what I said? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am. You're all describing Kirkegaard's paper as pseudoscience. So which is it? 170.246.152.82 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are words you can find on this talk page or its deleted article, for sure. Yep. Uh huh. Go on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed we can just re-create the article sensibly to criticise, see Journal of Individual Differences.SimonandSimon (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I always look on the editorial board of these journals to see how Kirkegaard gets his pseudoscience published. Who is on editorial board of Evolutionary Behavioural Sciences - Satoshi Kanazawa of course (as an associate editor.) SimonandSimon (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but believe it or not, when this was first published, I checked the editorial board. There weren't any notable race shit-stirrers there. It's nowhere near the level of "well that's weird, a person famous for their essentiallist views, but low qualifications in the field is on the board" that like Intelligence has. And intelligence, for even that failing, publishes plenty of legit research that isn't steeped in the board's ideology. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not everything Kirkegaard touches is automatically bad, and one editorial person being iffy doesn't mean the entire journal is, although of course it's not a great indication overall. I would say we need a bit more before we can make a strong case on it. NekoDysk 18:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)