Talk:Evolutionary neuroscience

Repeated deletions

Deletion of content by User:Antaeus Feldspar, without commensurate effort at making improvements to articles, has continued for months with no end in sight. This article deserves better. The expression of annoyance with the widening pattern of deletions was in no way intended to be taunting, and apologies if you misconstrued the intent that way. While deletionism has its place, it should be balanced to some degree by diplomacy and good faith attempts to enhance content. Please try a little harder to tone down the rhetoric. Ombudsman 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I think there are some parts of the article that need clarifying. The style is a bit hard for the reader. For example, acceleration is a bit obscure in this context. I'm not an expert in this particular field, but I'm sure it will be easy for someone to improve. Pacificsun 03:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs rewriting entirely

There is no real explanation of what Evolutionary neuroscience is. There's a section on evolution of brain size in human evolution (poor, but at least on topic), then a section on neural development in model organisms (mostly off-topic?), then a section on Genetics of mental retardation in humans which is surely entirely off-topic. What a mess. Fences&Windows 01:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this article -- given that it started nearly empty of content, my inclination has been to give P'tit Pierre space to fool around with it for a while before getting judgmental. It isn't easy to blast out an article from scratch -- most of the ones I have developed have gone through a stage of massive incoherency before improving (some are still incoherent, I'm afraid). Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The material doesn't belong here. I've moved some to X-linked mental retardation, Evolution of nervous systems (new), and Neuroanatomy, where it belongs. We need content on the scientific field called "Evolutionary neuroscience" as that is the subject of the article. The current state of the article as a stub is not an excuse for adding off-topic material simply to pad it out. That's not being "judgemental", it's just applying rigour to the expansion of this article. Fences&Windows 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I had added material in the area of comparative neuroanatomy and developmental neurobiology in model organisms. now we are left with an almost blank page, so we will see what you are able to write on “Evolutionary Neuroscience” in the next weeks… P'tit PierreP'tit Pierre (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not relevant material because it is not about evolutionary neuroscience as a discipline. Have you seen my attempt at a new article on Evolution of nervous systems, which is relevant to some of the material you added here? This is not a competition, so "we will see what you are able to write on “Evolutionary Neuroscience” in the next weeks" is not the right approach. Please read Wikipedia:Editing policy. We, i.e. all interested Wikipedia editors, should work together to add on-topic material.

We need to add material on the history, development and current status of the field evolutionary neuroscience, from the early beginnings in the 19th century, through to the expansion in the mid 20th century following the synthesis of evolution and genetics, all the way up to modern evolutionary neuroscience. A section on comparative neuroanatomy would make sense. We should include the techniques used by evolutionary neuroscientists, both historically and today. This blog post gives a summary of developments in evolutionary neuroscience, it could be a jumping off point for finding material to expand this article: http://blogs.nature.com/caio_maximino/2008/09/09/evolutionary-neuroscience-thinking-about-brain-and-evolution. It cites two useful articles, "Changing views of brain evolution" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923001005603 and Understanding Vertebrate Brain Evolution http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/4/743.full, both by Glenn Northcutt: Fences&Windows 15:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Great! Why don't you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P'tit Pierre (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

A few things I think can be added: A lot of research has been done studying animals and how neurological aspects play a role their development of aggression/violence. expanding the history section to include current findings. Expanding and adding sections such as popular methods used in the field. Hampton.167 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that section on serotonin and aggression was not relevant to a discussion of the scientific field of evolutionary neuroscience. Another article might be a more appropriate venue, but I am not sure which. Fences&Windows 21:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 17

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sofiadelao, Maugagne, Zeeha1, Aria.fortier (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JoeBreach.

— Assignment last updated by JoeBreach (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 16

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adrian0308, Lyanna labrecque, Abby Abergel, T1xan15, MaxiiBoii, Alexabowers, BrianSintimm (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kim Brunelle, Braydenafournier, 2075245JA.

— Assignment last updated by Jovanna.lanbaxter (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body, section 18

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peanutbutter.05, Beep445, SamiraYoussef1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Adrian.JAC, Murphypuppy101, EwanTCB, 2075245JA, Sumayauser123.

— Assignment last updated by Murphypuppy101 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Excessive dependence on single author / single book – L.F. Barrett (2020)

I compressed excessive citations (sentence-by-sentence instead of paragraph-by-paragraph) of Barrett (2020). After doing so, I noticed that L.F. Barrett is cited a lot, and often as the sole source. Although she is apparently a reputable scientist, and an expert in the field, it is still a bad thing to have large sections of the article based on a single book, by just one author. I would guess that there are plenty of books and journal articles already cited in this article (but just once or twice) that would usefully back-up Barrett's views. She probably cites them herself, if a helpful editor could check her or his copy of her book.
12.75.128.44 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)