User talk:EPM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sources for The Dual Inheritance Theory of Cultural Evolution

Hello. Good work on The Dual Inheritance Theory of Cultural Evolution, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in The Dual Inheritance Theory of Cultural Evolution? You can simply add links, preferably as inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tnx!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: PhD in Ev Psche, eh?

Hi, and thanks for the suggestions! I've now read both & added them to my watchlist... I'm indeed thinking about going into ev psych but I need to decide whether it is for me first... "Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind", "The Adapted Mind" & "Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology" are all on my reading list. Any other suggestions/comments would be most welcome! Regards... Mikkerpikker ... 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again... thanks for the reading list! Once I have enough $ to buy the books they will keep me busy for quite a while, I'm sure! Mikkerpikker ... 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Pinker

I've done a major update of the Pinker article; if you're interested please have a look and try (if you will) to fix my errors! :) Thanks, -- Mikkerpikker ... 16:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] overlinking

It looks like the article Evolutionary developmental psychology is sort of your baby, so I understand a desire to reference it other places. But it looks like you sort of went through everything on Template:Genarch and generically added a "see also" link, even where the connection is remote. Generally, if you can't see a topic being mentioned in the article text itself, it's unlikely to really be relevant enough for the "see also" section either. If you think there's an argument to include the link on the template, discuss it on the template talk page; but I'm inclined to think it's too narrowly focused. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I admire your enthusiasm for evolutionary psychology but I think one link in the psychology template is sufficient. The recent addition of "evolutionary developmental" seems, well, too much. The template is not intended to index every article or even every subfield in psychology. Nesbit 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

EPM, thanks for restoring the template Nesbit 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 1% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. (Based on the last 135 major and 2 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 05:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ev-Psych

Hey, replied to your comment Here

Orgone 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ToK Response

  • EPM: Thanks for the referral to the T of K website and other papers. I read the website and added to my Favs. I also started the U of Psych paper, but that will take a while.

The text of the website was quite interesting, ambitious, and even impressive.I confess that I can not get excited about the unification of psychology per se though reference to particular aspects do resonate as in the use of the phrase "knower and the known" and the accompanying discussion. For years, my philosophical gold standard has been a book by John Dewey and Arthur Bentley, "The Knowing and the Known". In fact I wrote a WP summary about "Transactions" for the biography John Dewey. In the subsequent discussion, the website author seemed to substitute "Knower" in order to accomodate the more subjective humanistic component for an unified psychogy. That's fair I guess, but it does seem to stretch a point in order to adjust to a goal. I was impressed with the article on Unified Psychology, despite the title because of attention to Dobhansky and the unification of biology through evolutionary theory, a good model for psychology.

I gather you are highly interested in evolution and started the EP article.I hope that the evolutionary psychologists are not stuck on proving hypotheses about survival fitness.That could be a cul de sac that would stifle a lot of creative thinking about evolution. User:Islandsage

[edit] Order of modes

Of course I realised why you put them in that order (sort of musical alphabetic). But I think the location on the keyboard is not that important. It is the inner structure that counts. That is: the intervals present in them. In my sequence they have one decreased interval more at every step (from all major and one augmented to all minor and one diminished). See the picture in article mode (music). Of course this also brings the major modes together (and consequently the minor ones). Note also that it corresponds to rearranging your sequence not ascending, but according to the circle of fifths of the starting note. −Woodstone 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To avoid seeing only half a conversation each, I centralised the discussion on my page. −Woodstone 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Psychology Wiki

Hi I see that you have been contributing to psychology articles on Wikipedia. Just to let you know that we are working on an academic psychology wiki for our professional community and our users. This can be found at: [1] We would really welcome your input and ask you to join us. We already have over 8500 pages up. Orientation, help and community portal pages are available off of this link. Please pass the good news onto anyone you feel would be interested.Lifeartist 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the Psychology Wiki is starting to get underway, have a look at our new designed Main Page for details... Mostly Zen 02:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the Psychology Wiki. I've transferred most of my time and effort to Wikinfo, after Fundamental Revision was deleted for NOR. Wikinfo could use your help, and it's more fun to write in a SPOV (sympathetic POV).I think I read your article on EV ED Psych. I could be more sure if you translated it into English.(Sorry!) You could even wite a new article on Evolutionary Psychology.Islandsage 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ToK

Hi EPM. The image you speak of would need to have a clearly explained, appropriate license for it be used in the Wikipedia version of the article. While the psychology wiki releases its text as GFDL, what about images? The image page does not state a license. I expect that is why the image never made it here along with the article. Technically, doing the upload is not too difficult, so if you want to confirm on the psychology wiki's image page that the image is GFDL, public domain, or whatever, we could upload it. –Outriggr § 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I got here too late - the image has been deleted. Who does it belong to - will they release under GFDL? –Outriggr § 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The most user-friendly license, if you're not aware, is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Further use requires attribution, and it's compatible with Wikipedia. –Outriggr § 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating TOK

Done. Feel free to ask for a second opinion if you wish. :-) Looks good so far. A bit more work and you'll be able to go for GA status. Cheers! Raystorm 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to give it a look tomorrow (you got me just as I'm leaving). :-) I've skimmed through the article very briefly, and you seem to have a references format problem. You need to pinpoint statements to the exact ref (inline citations), using cite book, cite web or whatever (and not like the two refs you have at the lead). See this for more info, ok? Talk to you later Raystorm 17:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Very interesting article. :-) This is my take on it:

  • The lead: it should be more precise. Try to summarize the big quote you use there so that non-experts can understand right from the start what the ToK system is all about. You need to address: (a) why there is a problem of unification in Psychology (b) how the ToK helps (c) external views on it. Just a few lines, trying to keep it as simple as possible, and addressing the all sections of the article. A brilliant lead is a 90% guarantee that someone will read an article. :-)
  • The problem of psych section: it'd be helpful if you mentioned examples of the different approaches while explaining Henriques view, so the point is more quickly made.
  • ToK section: To be honest, the entire section seems copied from a textbook. :-) Get a copyeditor and ask for their opinion ok? You know, I think you should put the 'How Tok solves the problem of Psychology' section before this one, so people know where to look when studying the model. And place the diagram where you are discussing the model, otherwise it's terribly complex to understand it, and it's a real drag to keep scrolling up and down. Consciousness and human behaviour could be placed after Toward the integration. You've got too many subsections, too. I believe it'd be useful to merge them.
  • This is important. To account for NPOV, you need to add the criticisms this system has received. Some must exist, and it would even look good for the ToK system if there was a heated debate about it. Nothing great was ever unquestioned, after all.
  • Do not forget to do the inline citation I asked you for. And if they exist, find extra sources from people other than Henriques, if it's possible.

Hope that helps somewhat. Interesting article as I said, and kudos for your great work on it. :-) Cheers Raystorm 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience

The article Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience was deleted because no one disagreed with the assessment "Neologism, no assertion of notability, too new," and because the article was almost totally empty. It consisted of a bunch of section headings with no content, preceded by these two paragraphs:

Evolutionary cognitive neuroscience (ECN) is a newly emerging discipline that applies methodologies from evolutionary psychologyand cognitive neuroscience. ECN applies an evolutionary meta-theoretical guidance to investigations that utilize cognitive neuroscientific techniques (e.g., functional neuroimaging).
The recent volume published by the MIT Press, Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience defines the discipline and the general approach.

You are welcome to try to recreate the article, if you can add some more verifiable material. ➥the Epopt 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tree of Knowledge image deletion

The image was lisenced under a no comercial use only lisence. this is not free enough for wikipedia where images need to be under a free lisence such as the GFDL.Geni 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the peer review. Not where I'm coming from. Thanks for the invite to psywiki. Am moving across post haste.--Ziji 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geary

The page you have edited on Geary , has been listed for proposed deletion. I have removed the deletion tag, which stops the process for the moment. He seems a worthy subject for an article, but if you would like the article to remain you must write it in the WP style, which includes:


saying in the first sentence something to dramatically demonstrate notability, like "A.b. is an internationally-known professor of X at, winner of the XYZ prize and 10 honorary doctorates" , or A.B. is a notable authority on Whatever. She is ... (etc) (whatever applies best). Use the exact wording I recommend, including either the word "notable" or "internationally-known" or "nationally-known"; do not use "famous" -- May sound silly, but that is what many people look for here.

  • listing college degrees with university and year -- and putting the university names in double brackets--listing important awards

and important memberships and offices held -- lists work better than paragraphs

  • listing books published as formal references style: Author, title, Publisher, year ISBN if possible.
  • listing some major published papers, say how many total. Do not just link to Google, list the most prestigious papers. State the importance the journals are. Say how many other papers cited them. Use PubMed, not Google or Google Scholar. --Pub Med covers this field better.
  • and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or a newspaper stories. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. These is, very unfortunately, some prejudice against people from the academic world.
sources are what does it. DGG 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution and Human Behavior Wiki

Why not focus on improving Wikipedia's articles? Perhaps start a Wikiproject?

And re Greary: it was simply a prod, which I removed. The user in question, 130.113.219.195 (talk · contribs), prodded several psychology related articles, including Barkow's. Please check to see whether you disagree with any of the other prods s/he's made and remove them if so. Mikker (...) 09:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a simmilar project over at EvoWiki Orgone 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethology reference

Would you be so kind as to hunt down the reference and include the information that the author claims? It looks like an interesting article, and the approach seems to match the scientific method (heh, psychology on the opposite end, perhaps). -- kanzure 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of publications

It's at Wikipedia:Research resources/Evolution and human behavior. I hope the (apparent) quagmire that articles on this topic seems to be is cleared out eventually. Circeus 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the excellent help!

Is it actually ironic that your handle is EPM, or is that your secret EP name that identifies you to fellow EPsters? (kidding). Leadwind (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)