how does opining on one of the author’s reputability have to do with the integrity of the study or its findings? that’s like saying Teslas are good cars because you happen to like Elon Musk.
A quick google search gives look as: “a crazy or eccentric person.” He probably is quite eccentric, but I’d say “crazy” is a bit much. Merrimack Webster uses “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Feel free to share why you specifically think his writing demonstrates insanity
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes again, to nobody’s surprise
I’m sorry, as I’ve stated from the beginning, this work is most likely not accurate. However, I don’t think exploring odd theories makes someone a “kook,” no. He’s a scientist exploring and publishing a review of the research.
Again, your comment stated that the authors are kooks. I stated the lead author is quite respected and then provided evidence backing my comment. Again, if you have specific evidence or quotes as to why you think this man is crazy, I’m all ears.
Again, your comment stated that the authors are kooks.
Again, if you have specific evidence or quotes as to why you think this man is crazy, I’m all ears.
ah, I’ve identified the problem-- either you’re illiterate, or you think I’m stupid enough to be distracted by your obvious trolling to notice you’re trying to put words in my mouth.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
Again, that’s not what my point is. I’m just disputing the characterization you made
Edit: every reply from the above commenter gets 5 upvotes in 2 minutes, while all my comments get 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… nice job being subtle
how does opining on one of the author’s reputability have to do with the integrity of the study or its findings? that’s like saying Teslas are good cars because you happen to like Elon Musk.
The comment called the authors “kooks.” I am disputing that characterization. As you say, this has nothing to do with the study.
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes… wow, is this breaking any rules that the person has so many accounts and manipulates votes?
you haven’t disputed anything. all you’ve done is to disagree and link to a Wikipedia article that does nothing to contradict my assessment.
I apologize if my comment was not clear. You’re correct, just posting a link is not sufficient. However, the lead author, Gordon Gallup Jr, created the mirror test (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/mirror-test#:~:text=A concept of self has,differentiate themselves from other individuals.)
His work is pretty vital in our understanding or primate cognition. See his recent paper for an update: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-57425-001
A quick google search gives look as: “a crazy or eccentric person.” He probably is quite eccentric, but I’d say “crazy” is a bit much. Merrimack Webster uses “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Feel free to share why you specifically think his writing demonstrates insanity
Edit: 5 downvotes in 2 minutes again, to nobody’s surprise
so, after citing other works which have no bearing whatsoever on this one, you agree that he’s kooky.
are you trolling for any particular reason or just because you’re bored?
I’m sorry, as I’ve stated from the beginning, this work is most likely not accurate. However, I don’t think exploring odd theories makes someone a “kook,” no. He’s a scientist exploring and publishing a review of the research.
Again, your comment stated that the authors are kooks. I stated the lead author is quite respected and then provided evidence backing my comment. Again, if you have specific evidence or quotes as to why you think this man is crazy, I’m all ears.
ah, I’ve identified the problem-- either you’re illiterate, or you think I’m stupid enough to be distracted by your obvious trolling to notice you’re trying to put words in my mouth.
enough with the Sealioning
My apologies again. What does “academic kooks” mean to you?