Jack comments on The things we know that we know ain't so - Less Wrong

16 Post author: PhilGoetz 11 January 2010 09:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (148)

Comments (148)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Jack 12 January 2010 12:38:34AM 4 points [-]

Is it because this information is considered unimportant? Hardly; it's probably the only functional association you will find in every course and every book on the brain.

This isn't my experience at all, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning. In my cog sci class we studied the associated anatomy for psychopathology, ADHD, dyslexia and probably a couple others I can't think of, but I don't remember anything about Wernicke's or Broca's areas.

Possibly not; this 2006 paper on Broca's area by a renowned expert does not mention it. (In its defense, it references many other studies in which damage to Broca's area is associated with language deficits.)

I go to Georgetown and I'm involved with the Cog Sci program. If I have time I'll go ask Professor Ullman about this. :-)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 12 January 2010 05:50:58AM *  1 point [-]

Oh, dear. Providing specific examples is a risky business. I still haven't figured out a safe way to discuss a field without making myself less welcome to some of its members.

Comment author: Jack 12 January 2010 08:45:42AM 2 points [-]

I was just adding a data point to the pile of evidence. Don't infer motivations or allegiances. I think your general point is insightful and don't think of myself as a member of the field.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit