Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] List with fresh(ish) eyes

Expand Messages
  • Sussa Björkholm
    Thanks Hibbsa - valuable points and I share them exactly. I have to admit I ve pretty much given up on the list already as I see almost no science-minded
    Message 1 of 41 , Dec 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Hibbsa - valuable points and I share them exactly. I have to admit I've pretty much given up on the list already as I see almost no "science-minded" discussions appear anymore. I'm almost never one to start one either, haven't for more than a decade commented first on any publications other than to critizice it for sloppy methods or stupid hypotheses, so am not saying I'm any better. But since I've decided to keep out of anything that a) doesn't interest me b) turns into simpleminded quarrelling, I've had nothing to contribute in my own fields.

      I have become "angry" at the list since this new and growing phenomenon of ad hominen attacking really puts me off. As soon as some persons run out of real arguments (which seems to be very quickly in some cases), it all turns into a shouting match.

      That said, there are some wonderful, intelligent people here and they are the only reason I still am here after almost 20 years. I admire your energy and appreciate being allowed to have glimpses into your knowledge and thoughts.

      Sussa



      On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:25 AM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:

      Hi ....I looked at the list today for the first time in a few weeks
      (been away/busy), and I could be wrong but there seems to be a marked
      relative decline in academic contributions (and contributors). I am not
      myself an academic so obviously do value the openness of the list to the
      views/questions/discussions of ordinary folk. But....at least for
      me...the value of this list as opposed to a vast selection of other more
      layperson lists, has been that opportunity to read the discussions (or
      arguments) between academics in the field. Certainly a part of that is
      also to read the sometimes or frequently interesting/relevant
      contributions of other laypeople like myself. But - and again this is
      just my personal preference which I guess I am stating because I imagine
      a lot of other people share it - I kind of value those layperson
      contributions when they occur within a context of a discussion that is,
      by and large, dominated/led by academic folk.

      I say I think other people will share the view. What I mean is, I
      imagine there will be symbiosis between my preference and many other
      stakeholders in this list. For example, academics....from their
      perspective surely the attraction/value will be primarily the
      opportunity to interact with other academics. For example, more junior
      researchers might seek out a good list for the opportunity to get their
      name in front of more senior, more influential academics. Or peers,
      whether senior or junior, may seek a good list to carry on some friendly
      or not so friendly disagreement. When it comes to interactions with
      members of the public, laypersons and so on of various levels of ability
      and sanity, from the perspective of academics this is probably very
      welcome just so long as it remains mostly secondary, and mostly focussed
      on the subjects the academics are throwing into the space.

      In other words, academics probably want what I, and many others want
      from the list. An environment that encourages academic/specialist
      contributors, also open to members of the interested public.

      Is this generally what other people envisage for this list? What does
      Robert want? Are we layperson contributors aware that we may not be able
      to have our cake and eat it. Meaning that, we can choose to collectively
      dominate the list but if we do, academics will drift away and it just
      becomes "another list" of which there are millions out there.

      I mean...should there really be such a long running thread about
      astrology? One answer to that would be, yes..if the discussion is about
      the evolutionary psychology of psychology. Another answer would be, if
      it isn't then no.

      Just personal preferences. I of course accept it is not up to me and
      hope no one takes any offense none which is intended.






      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          evolutionary-psychology-digest@yahoogroups.com
          evolutionary-psychology-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          evolutionary-psychology-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


    • R A Fonda
      Frankly, hibbsa, I don t understand how you can fail to appreciate the amazing spectacle of this list. A dry, intellectually safe academic list, let alone
      Message 41 of 41 , Dec 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Frankly, hibbsa, I don't understand how you can fail to appreciate the amazing spectacle of this list. A dry, 'intellectually safe' academic list, let alone some journal, is as deficient in psychological exemplars as a monoculture compared to an old-growth forest!

        And free speech! Well, almost ... and how much do you see of THAT elsewhere?

        So you don't get to read a brand new, breakthrough hypothesis here every day ... nor anywhere else either.

        Don't step on the hose ;-)


        RAF
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.