Note 1

OK, OK, "facts gradually sliding into interpretation in the service of an argument." "Fact" sounds good, but are identities like "doctor" or "evolutionary psychologist" the same kind of cut-and-dried fact as "water is wet"? If you prefer, call these distinctions basic ethnography of the academic cultures being covered.

Note 2

Some professional organizations certify individuals such as doctors or lawyers to perform undisputed services, like implanting silicon sacks in breasts, for money, and so insist on flashing credentials or some demonstration of competence (or so they'd have you believe). HBES, like all other non-certifying scholarly organizations, such as those of biologists, anthropologists, and philosophers, is interested only in your money, and conducts no inquiry into the beliefs or competence (whatever that would mean) of potential members. If people are imputing professional or scholarly competence on the basis of membership in professional organizations of this kind, saints preserve us.

Note 3

Judith, if "evolutionary psychologist" just meant "psychologist" + "evolution," then as an anthropologist I wouldn't qualify as one, nor would the biologist Randy Thornhill or the anthropologist Craig Palmer, both of whom you identified as evolutionary psychologists in your recent discussion of their work. You yourself seem to flip between definitions, as it suits your journalistic needs. The quotations you have found merely have him using "evolutionary biology" in the same sentence as "psychology." For those interested in reading about what the theoretical commitments characterizing evolutionary psychology might be, try the first two chapters of The Adapted Mind.

Note 4

The Institute for Scientific Information indexes all the references in more than 10,000 of the leading journals in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. By using their tools, you can find out how often a work has been cited, and by whom. It is a very good indicator of the impact of a publication and its waxing or waning over time. In MacDonald's case, his first book and his last book were each cited once (by someone other than himself), and his middle book on anti-Semitism as a rational response to Jewish actions has never been cited by anyone at all in these journals. Citation by others is the relevant measure, because for mysterious reasons almost all scholars cite themselves as authoritative or interesting. However, the impact of a scholar--however dramatic--on the development of her own thinking is not often a widely valued measure. Of course, the ISI staff are not all-seeing, but limit themselves to publications above a certain threshold of importance. Hence, citations in more marginal journals and newsletters will be missed. As a devotee of arcane publications, I do happen to know of one citation to MacDonald's first book that they did miss, which raises his count to: three.