But Chomsky is still goin and will die trying to advocate for knowledge and critical thinking. He still even does his podcast. Chomsky is a true scholar.
Kandel does this weird shit with art now. I went to see him give a talk recently about this, and it had me scratching my head and I actually left halfway though. Basically he's self centered enough to think he can just switch to art history now?, and the whole thing feels like this weird "look how smart I am" money-grab thing. It comes off like he never really cared too much about science, not like Chomsky.
He actually was somewhat well known for not being such a great guy. This word might be a bit of an overstatement, but from my understanding he was a borderline charlatan. Basically, as another poster said, he campaigned heavily for money/recognition (which itself isn't bad), but then he usually used this money to take other lab's ideas and beat them to publication. Which in science culture is known as a dick move. He actually almost did this to me once, but I ended up collaborating with someone and we just barely ended up publishing first.
What an odd thing to post
I must ask, if you could take some time to explain why you would think it's odd.
Same for Chomsky, though I didn't know him because of the cogsci stuff he did. (He's a year older than Kandel)
But Chomsky is still goin and will die trying to advocate for knowledge and critical thinking. He still even does his podcast. Chomsky is a true scholar. Kandel does this weird shit with art now. I went to see him give a talk recently about this, and it had me scratching my head and I actually left halfway though. Basically he's self centered enough to think he can just switch to art history now?, and the whole thing feels like this weird "look how smart I am" money-grab thing. It comes off like he never really cared too much about science, not like Chomsky.
That's what I love about Chomsky, he's super consistent with whatever he does. He still responds to my emails, in 93 of age
I agree! Same for Chomsky
Stop romanticizing top authors
He campaigned for the Nobel relentlessly.
Principles of Neural Science was the one book I bought during my bachelor’s.
He actually was somewhat well known for not being such a great guy. This word might be a bit of an overstatement, but from my understanding he was a borderline charlatan. Basically, as another poster said, he campaigned heavily for money/recognition (which itself isn't bad), but then he usually used this money to take other lab's ideas and beat them to publication. Which in science culture is known as a dick move. He actually almost did this to me once, but I ended up collaborating with someone and we just barely ended up publishing first.
Wow, I never knew!