User talk:Lady Corvex

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Lady Corvex!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Greetings, Lady Corvex, and thank you for joining the infectious microcosm wiki! I hope you enjoy your time here. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


I've given you the unnoticeable "autopatrol" ability, which is only relevant to sysops, but I'm telling you as an excuse to say that I've read some of your blog and you are a wonderful person who deserves only the best in life. Blue Talk 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you very much! User:Lady Corvex/sig 4:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

psst - you sign with four ~'s (~~~~). It looks like a good blog. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Feelin' your pain[edit]

+1 I can do it within my own field, though. I usually just tell people I study psychology or neuroscience ("cogn-a-whatsits now?") to avoid confusion. Psychology inevitably elicits responses of "I love Sigmund Freud!" (gag) or "Hah, psychology is a pseudoscience/guesswork/outright bullshit!" If I say "neuroscience," I get to be play the uber-genius white lab-coated scientist. Sprinkle in some names of neurotransmitters and random biological terms and you get bonus points. (Also, re: evo psych, check out David J. Buller's definitive take-downs.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit I know very little about cognitive science. However, from the description provided here on RW, I get two impressions: 1) that it is very interesting, and 2) that it is probably very susceptible to abuse by cranks (who tend to jump on anything which even remotely implies that reality is, in any way subjective). For that you have my sympathy.Lady Corvex (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Lady Corvex

The cranks actually haven't caught up to the cog sci terminology yet for the most part, though they're all over psych and neuroscience. Now I notice the article is in severe need of a rewrite -- it's more of a description of Lakoff-ian embodied cognitionWikipedia than cog sci as a whole. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Obligatory. Though some fields do have it coming. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Now go nuts and trash the joint. --MtDPrematurely Indeterminate 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do it[edit]