-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
Emil, would you be willing to submit to a polygenic risk analysis for susceptibility to defend pedophilia? Do you think it would have a high correlation to non-scientists who love to self-cite their own pseudoscience?pic.twitter.com/5BnAhBlyhz
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JoeNanbu @KirkegaardEmil
Lumping authored and co-authored together is an obvious attempt to inflate the number
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DKshad0w @KirkegaardEmil
What does it matter? He's not a scientist.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JoeNanbu @KirkegaardEmil
Being misleading matters no matter who it is
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DKshad0w @KirkegaardEmil
Edward Dutton isn't a scientist either.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So, if you publish extensively in high impact science journals you are a . . . erm . . .? Joe Nanbu is a credentialist.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yeah, I am. When I need something done in a specific area, I go to the trained expert, not the "polymath." And your buddy Emil's journals are not legitimate. They are pseudojournals.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So James Flynn - discoverer of the Flynn Effect - is not a psychologist. I see.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Use the block button dudes.
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @jollyheretic and
I second this. For your own sake, and that of your followers.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.