In your OP you asked if it was beneficial to have a curator (which I think means dictator in this context). I answered why I think it's not.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
I don't agree with your conflation. I DO agree, however, that in as much as any curator will be biased (because, human), best to have many.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Christakou
So many is... just like every other field within a single curator, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
So you're agreeing linguistics was/is pathological when in the grip of a single curator/dictator because they are inevitably biased?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
I think we've come a to good agreement then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
If you say so. FWIW, there are countless talented young academics who will never fullfil their potential; this problem is domain general.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
You think more curators are good and for example, cog neuro has way more "big figures" than linguistics did/does.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Christakou
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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!
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
I was thinking of Freud too. He has been equivalently neutralised for outsiders, but I don't know that psychoanalysts can be as neutral...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.