Not really going to go into this on Twitter. I'm sure there's a lot of more nuanced stuff that I could say already written up by others.
So you're agreeing linguistics was/is pathological when in the grip of a single curator/dictator because they are inevitably biased?
-
-
I don't know if linguistics is more pathological than any other discipline, I simply envy it for Chomsky's insight.
-
I'm telling you it was and still is.
-
Obviously, our opinions can differ and I respect that but you asked for mine and for some reading, to which I obliged.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think we've come a to good agreement then.

-
If you say so. FWIW, there are countless talented young academics who will never fullfil their potential; this problem is domain general.
-
For sure, but some fields are worse than others.
-
You think more curators are good and for example, cog neuro has way more "big figures" than linguistics did/does.
-
PS: (just as I board) big figure <> curator. Cog neuro does NOT have a curator that I recognise. Lots of big figures, yes. Some dictatorial.
-
Fair point. I still think linguistics was negatively impacted by Chomsky. Maybe you can get a chance to read a little and see what I mean?
-
I think it's akin to Freud and psych on some level. If you don't get a chance that's obviously cool as I'm sure you have better stuff to do!
-
I was thinking of Freud too. He has been equivalently neutralised for outsiders, but I don't know that psychoanalysts can be as neutral...
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
