So you're agreeing linguistics was/is pathological when in the grip of a single curator/dictator because they are inevitably biased?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
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!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
Replying to @Christakou @o_guest
Now they are just shouting at me, I really have to go. Hope we pick it up again
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Haha jeez don't miss your flight over linguistics! Safe travels! 
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.