@JoshGitlin Bows

Nah, I gave up on asking and answering. I've got a CJA, a conditioned journal aversion.

OH GOOD IDEA FOR A QUESTION NOW!

@jonsca journals are a pain

People really need a slap upside the head sometimes

@BenBrocka I still have all of my access and everything, I just hate the process of download, read, summarize, etc. hehe

Yeah, I really think it's an important barrier to entry that makes the whole process more painful than it's worth for many people

especially when most can't access the content from most sites out there anyway

True, we'd have to limit ourselves to certain journals like J. Neurosci that are open access after a year moratorium

$10 bucks says that guy is a shaman or a doctor in some country with lax standards

witch doctors don't NEED PhDs

My first response was going to be "Why stop there, I'm sure dRugg$.c0m is hiring physicians"

I'm lumping him in with the British lawyers on A51 who are all "I can so dispense legal information if I want to under UK law" and all of the other British lawyers are laughing their asses off at them

They're not going to make me trot out my "I can bring a box of fireworks and books of matches to the school playground" argument for the 3rd time, are they?

Old man @jonsca's being mean again :(

No, I'm the life of the grade school party!

Until they all lose hands

I told you to stop hanging around those school zones man

lol

It's back to the college cheerleading practice for me, then, safer there

I'll give them fireworks, too

cheerleaderswithfireworks.se

I know better than to look at your Swedish pr0n sites, Ben

The name confusion continues

I'm just riding out that proposal's slow death anyway, but yeah, the misnomer still kinda sucks. Did you add that example to the Meta question?

@ArtemKaznatcheev I'll revisit this with the team and see what they say.

Last time I checked we didn't have much more community support, so, I doubt we'll see a change with SE staff.

Or at least a consistent direction

@jonsca I did :D

@JoshGitlin hopefully we can convince them to do something about it... especially with the damn Mind proposal looming around.

@ArtemKaznatcheev I am considering starting a Meta question about what the name should be. I thought we had that but cannot seem to locate it?

I will touch base with the team Monday

@JoshGitlin meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/283/… or meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/290/… or meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/297/… ?

FWIW, i was originally opposed to a name change as i still believe that cogsci IS a broad name that covers everything we want to be; but certainly it does suffer from an image problem, and we haven't made any traction on it

so i suppose i'd be in favor of a name change now, presuming the new name is all-encompassing

"mind and brain" has been suggested on meta, as has "brain and behavior"

might I suggest "brain, mind, and behavior", which is also the name of princeton's neuroscience department

i think the "brain" is enough to satisfy neuroscientists

and, as a psychologist, i'd like to avoid having "psychology" in the name; people will think it's a site about psychoanalysis and clinical psych, which may be acceptable Qs but represents a very small portion of psychology

mind and brain seems alright to me

Mind brain and behavior seems too long. Brain and behavior seems too specific

that was the name of a course of mine mostly focusing on behaviorism

welp, if we want to keep the name short, some group is gonna feel left out

which is why i felt cogsci was a good name-- but apparently not

i was also opposed to long names, but then again "english language and usage" is even longer, and is quite successful

Brain, mind and behavior just seems one word too long. Mind & brain seems like it could be a name as well as a description. Brain, mind and behavior is a list.

EL&U is still just one "and"