I think there should not be a big overlap with Skeptics Exchange. Questions, say, of the form "Is <widely believed claim about motivation> true?" are probably better handled over there, even if we can come up with obviously relevant citations. But questions that cite specific cogsci research really must be on-topic.

So I'd say that:

1. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/6/why-do-higher-incentives-lead-to-lower-performance-for-non-rudimentary-tasks
2. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/111/does-caffeine-improve-performance-for-habituated-consumers

name claims in identified research publications and so are on topic, but

1. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/56/is-the-decline-of-fluid-iq-with-age-less-severe-for-professors-and-scientists-th
2. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/183/cognitive-explanation-of-why-beta-blockers-are-effective-for-anxiety

do not and are essentially Skex qns. Although they are not individually bad questions here, their frequency may be a bit expert-deterring and they are the kind of qn that Skex has achieved good discipline in handling.

I'm not a cognitive scientist, but I have a lot of contact with cognitive scientists through my work, and I don't see the questions here as being exciting to many professional psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, or philosophers of mind; maybe we should be concerned about the tone?

I think there should not be a big overlap with Skeptics Exchange. Questions, say, of the form "Is <widely believed claim about motivation> true?" are probably better handled over there, even if we can come up with obviously relevant citations. But questions that cite specific cogsci research really must be on-topic.

So I'd say that:

1. https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/6/why-do-higher-incentives-lead-to-lower-performance-for-non-rudimentary-tasks
2. https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/111/does-caffeine-improve-performance-for-habituated-consumers

name claims in identified research publications and so are on topic, but

1. https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/56/is-the-decline-of-fluid-iq-with-age-less-severe-for-professors-and-scientists-th
2. https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/183/cognitive-explanation-of-why-beta-blockers-are-effective-for-anxiety

do not and are essentially Skex qns. Although they are not individually bad questions here, their frequency may be a bit expert-deterring and they are the kind of qn that Skex has achieved good discipline in handling.

I'm not a cognitive scientist, but I have a lot of contact with cognitive scientists through my work, and I don't see the questions here as being exciting to many professional psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, or philosophers of mind; maybe we should be concerned about the tone?