Check out the entry posted by the mysterious neuroblogger, Neurocritic, on Richard Wise's talk at CNS. Was Richard really THAT snarky? And toward Hickok & Poeppel of all people? And did he really say we should "throw out most of the literature from stroke aphasia"? Can I get independent confirmation of this, please?
Neurocritic had some kind words in defense of Hickok & Poeppel, so thanks much NeuroCrit.
Who is this Neurocritic dude anyway?
3 comments:
The whole symposium on semantics and the anterior temporal lobe was the best symposium I have ever witnessed at CNS (I was not on the circuit yet when the legendary Poeppel one took place, so—).
It was very worthwhile and refreshing to have actual Neuropsychology at CNS, and Richard Wise was, of course, Richard Wise, but this was exactly what we needed. He drove home quite a few points about anatomy of which the usual CNS participant may indeed be slightly oblivious, at times. He hailed you guys in a way only a Brit could do for rolling out the new model every to years, not without expressing one or the other point of dissent from your position.
Take over, Richard Wise! We need more British speakers at CNS, that is for sure. Why not have, for a change, annual Richard Wise celebratory (cerebratory) satellite symposia at CNS? I am serious on that one.
From what I remember Richard did say all of that stuff. If you imagine it with a British accent and a glint in his eye, it comes off as (I think) less snarky than when you just read it. On the whole I thought he made many good points, and in the context of everything he talked about, I think he actually was quite complimentary of you two.
I have no doubts whatsoever that Richard was thoughtful and indeed Wise. It sounds like his comment on the "development" of our model was pretty funny. He's definitely on our list of favorite people in the field. Wish I could have been there. Go Richard!
Post a Comment