I mean.. If I want to build a hell, I still want options.
Like, realistic space use for car hell would be interesting but maybe sometimes I wanna build a university on a hill and student housing at the top of a different hill and to get to class you have to bike up a hill both ways.
Maybe his stuff on eel genitals was better but in psychology.. no, neither rigor nor methodology are things I'd attest him. Nor getting things meaningfully right despite this. Nor to be the first, given that the psychophysics people were already doing work that's both scientifically sound and still a solid basis for contemporary work.
Or read the article?
If you want to do it right, the conclusions in evolutionary psychology are: -hard to get to (because just making up shit is not proper evidence, Santa Barbara church of evolutionary psychology..) -not as news sexy as that shit
Like, you can do stuff where you use phylogenetic history to make predictions about the prepotency of phobic stimuli, and that'll be solid enough, but just screaming how your sexism is science is so much easier!
Pretty sure I remember a study that eclectic psychotherapy has lower efficacy than manual based psychotherapy, buts it been a few years..
"However, this doesn't mean everything he did was worthless."
Agreed - its popularity actively set back our collective understanding of the mind.
There's many things I can overlook here but the lack of bikes nixed my hype fully. I don't want to build car hell yet again. I can leave the house if I wanna see that.