Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 03:26, December 1, 2007

[edit] Capture bonding

Capture bonding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously deleted after a valid AfD, then reconsidered in deletion review and the deletion was endorsed. A new draft was recreated, and it is different enough that it should be reconsidered. Mind you, it is not very different, so consensus should lean strongly toward keep in order for this to be closed not as delete. Chick Bowen 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - A lot of the sources seem to be dubious, after reading the old AFD and finding a problem with one of the sources I support the move to delete. futurebird (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy makes is very clear that it is permissible to cite your own published peer reviewed material. If you are going to declare Mankind Quarterly to be not acceptable then you really should go into the Mankind Quarterly article page and make it clear that it is not acceptable to cite this journal in Wikipedia articles and why. Incidentally, the revision of the MQ page you did is over the top. I have asked you to revert on your talk page. Keith Henson (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this should have been a speedy G4 (reposting of deleted content). The only substantive change between pre-deletion versions and the current version is that an article by Keith Henson in Mankind Quarterly has been substituted for an article by Keith Henson in The Human Nature Review. Since this was discussed at the DRV, there's no reason why this article should have been restored.
• Anyway, the same problems that were discussed in the AfD and DRV apply. There's no use of the term "catpure bonding" in peer-reviewed psychological literature except in articles by Keith Henson--see a Google Scholar search for "capture bonding psychology". Even worse, except for the Henson article, none of the sources currently cited in Capture bonding use the phrase "capture bonding", with the exception of a self-published novel book by Linda McJunkins. Thus, most of the references used in the article are an example of an original synthesis of previously published material. That's a violation of our no original research policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that McJunkins' book isn't a work of fiction, so I've altered my statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were right the first time and I was mistaken. It is fiction. Keith Henson (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. We've been through this. It's little more than a promotional protologism, highly redundant by any standard with an existing article, and with no independent and credible sources telling us how it is really different. COI sourcing is a major problem. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re "promotional protologism," you might note the term was used before Wikipedia existed. I think it's really important for people to understand EP and its minor points like capture-bonding for the reasons Silverman stated:

"My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep0119.pdf

But I didn't originate either EP *or* capture-bonding.

Now the EP model from bleak times a-coming to xenophobic memes to war or terrorism, that I might be able to claim, at least on the points Azar Gat missed in his work. Keith Henson (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

" . . . but I'm [in]sufficiently familiar with the history here to judge. Chick Bowen 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"To my eyes, the draft is substantially improved, more than enough to escape CSD G4 (deletion of reposted content.) I'm not even sure it requires an AfD, but that is at editorial option. It now seems like a fine article to me, and I will move it to mainspace. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)" [1]

A bit of history. The original AfD was based on a version of the article butchered by someone now banned. That was in the middle of the Sadi Carnot (also now banned) controversy. The reason was "either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both."

From WP:COI

"Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest.

"Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."

Although interesting in providing a tentative explanation for a lot of weird human behavior, the psychological mechanisms are so obvious to evolutionary psychology researchers that it was considered too trivial for a paper back in the early 80s. So there are not a lot of cites besides my two papers (mostly about other subjects) where capture bonding was used as an example of an easy to understand evolved psychological mechanism.

It's not pseudoscience by (Wikipedia standards) when an article gets published in a peer reviewed journal.

Akhilleus' objection of "original synthesis of previously published material" has more merit. But I think if you read the evolutionary psychology entry, it should be apparent that providing detail related to the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness where some psychological trait was selected isn't original either. In any case, there are equivalent developments in both the HNR article and the MQ article on such subjects as drug addiction.

I welcome people editing this article who understand evolutionary psychology. The only two (both now banned) I have objected to didn't know a thing about EP. Keith Henson (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to whatever may be the standard term, for it is not this. The concept seems to be broader than Stockholm Syndrome, which is I think properly used in a modern political context only. There's no reason to think this is pseudo-science--I think sources could be found for discussion of this concept back to at least the 19th century. However, I ask KH for some source for the definition and acceptance of the term, for none has ever been provided "The term is fairly widely used on the Web and has begun to show up in books" with one self-published fictional book cited is not sufficient. This is particularly relevant as the term used out of context would suggest something in chemistry. DGG (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This version, although different, seems to have the same faults as the last one. There is no evidence that this is a notable psychological concept and, dispite his obvious efforts, Keith Henson has not been able to address this point. It is my personal view that this is pseudoscience as well, although it seems deleteable as non-notable. Most examples of pseudoscience are simply ignored by main-steam scientists, and it appears that that is what has happened (quite justifiably) to this poor hypothesis. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to call it a "poor hypothesis" then how about generating something better?

The rules for EP reasoning are that *every* psychological trait humans have has to be either the direct result of selection or a side effect of some trait that was selected (with a possible corner case that a few traits might have been fixed randomly).

So, for example, the nearly universal trait of humans seeking status makes sense as a directly selected trait because you can see that high status males in tribal situations sire the majority of children.

Drug addiction, on the other hand, only makes sense as a side effect of some other trait since it is obvious that lying under a tree wasted on plant sap is a way to be eaten by some predator.

Within these rules how do you account for the way Patty Hearst responded to being abducted by the SLA?

If you can come up with something better, I will be happy to rewrite the article with your EP reasoning for what's behind Stockholm syndrome, etc. I am far from welded to the idea; I only used it as an easy to understand example in two articles. Those articles were about far more important subjects, how/why do people get sucked into cults, and what are the psychological mechanisms behind wars.

Further, it's not like I claim to have originated the idea. According to Dr. Leda Cosmedes, it was widely discussed by Dr. John Tooby with other graduate students in the early 80s.

If you are good at this, try coming up with an EP explanation of hypnosis. I have been considering that human psychological trait for a decade without making progress. The high powered researchers in that area of study have recently been trying to apply EP selection rules to hypnosis. I don't think much of their efforts so far.

There is a lot of status to be gained by the person who can put an EP explanation on hypnosis. Keith Henson (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• RE Rename I am not adverse to using another name for the concept if there is anything in use. This term is reasonably descriptive and reasonably short. I have used "social reorientation in response to capture" as the an equivalent (awkward) phrase. Agree that out of an EP context it could sound like something out of chemistry. Don't remember if John Tooby used the same term. Will ask Leda Cosmides. Agree that Stockholm Syndrome doesn't work here. Stockholm syndrome is the *outcome* of the operation of an evolved psychological mechanism that was essential for survival up to fairly recent times. Maybe the acronym CBM for Capture-bonding mechanism or some other acronym is the way to go. Am open to suggestions. Keith Henson (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is still no evidence that this term (or the concept under any other name) has gained currency in the scientific or popular literature. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re "no evidence." Trying Google, 1,330 for "capture-bonding", 1,270 for "capture-bonding" -henson How many wikipedia entries have even less hits than this? (hit random button a few times)

223 for "Charles E. Kearney"

163 for "Pearcea rhodotricha".

1,300 for "James Howard-Johnson"

106 for "Knapton railway station"

79 for "Moses G. Leonard".

and

861,000 for "Stockholm syndrome" (Which is not a very good article, but not worth rewriting because whatever you write gets clobbered in a few days.)

2,140 for "stockholm syndrome" "capture bonding" (That's strange. Now it says 3,600 for "capture-bonding" -henson)

Now I know it is possible to salt Google, but you can look at the dates on the capture bonding pages and see they were built up over a number of years.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.