Nicole RustSep 5, 2023

Don't miss this one ⤵️​. A wide-ranging and provocative conversation covering disparate issues like: How do we balance accuracy versus breadth as scientists? Why should we read a book written in 1897? When is a paw a hand? And should scientists cede the term "dopamine" to the pop-psychologists?

Exactly the type of thing I love about the furry elephant.

https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust/111012453557938392

Nicole Rust (@[email protected])

On jargon - is it useful? Is it necessary and useful for scientists to say "mnemonic" to refer to "memory" and "affect" to talk about "emotion"? In other words, given that everyone understand emotion and mood and no one really understands what "affect" is until you are really deep into things, why is the term affect useful and important at all? And should we reserve it for deep dives (as opposed to public facing websites and such)? And does anyone call themselves an "emotion researcher?" or a "mood researcher?" @PessoaBrain @[email protected]

Neuromatch Social
Show threadBen de Bivort

@NicoleCRust We don't need more jargon if it would cause us to spend more time stuck in semantic arguments.

I get that it can be fun to argue whether the brain computes, or what a representation is, or whether a hot dog is a sandwich, but most of these arguments boil down to folks having different intuitions for the meanings of these words. If we were more in the habit of enumerating definitions explicitly before assessing/applying them, a lot of this would go away.

Sep 6, 2023 at 2:55amWeb
Show threadBen de BivortSep 6, 2023
@NicoleCRust It would be pity to add more jargon if all we did was argue about its definitional boundaries.