neuroscience training?

David Longley David at
Fri Mar 12 09:34:14 EST 2004

In article <%Pi4c.16658$%06.8363 at>, ken 
<kpaulc at> writes
>"David Longley" <David at> wrote in message
>news:Z4cJPsAk8YUAFwam at
>> In article <XNd4c.16507$%06.393 at>, ken
>> <kpaulc at> writes
>> >"David Longley" <David at> wrote in message
>> >news:8KGgj6AOcKUAFw9w at
>> >> In article <Ob_3c.14739$%06.6605 at>, ken
>> >> <kpaulc at> writes
>> >> >"David Longley" <David at> wrote in message
>> >> >news:REXLwSAK7EUAFw4M at
>> >> >> In article <2HU3c.32952$aT1.17693 at>,
>> >ken
>> >> >> <kpaulc at> writes
>> >> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:bd30b63fbef5db982b3c1dfcfd654050 at
>> >> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >> "ken" <kpaulc at> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:tpx3c.4952$Cm3.3521 at
>> >> >> >> > "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:e0732ced1b39cc7c757f085f6a632eaf at
>> >> >> >> > [...]
>> >
>> >> I'm not whether I should congratulate you Ken!. You would appear to
>> >> "come out" as a hillbilly!
>> >> [...]
>> >
>> >Well, I didn't want to disabuse you of your illusion.
>> >
>> >Anyway, I had in-mind a Cowboy, as in 'riding' the 'range', widely.
>> >
>> >"Oh give me a hooome,
>> >Where the buffalo roooam,
>> >And the skies are not cloudy all day!"
>> >
>> >ken
>> >
>> >
>> As I've said several times before, that's what's so wrong about what you
>> post - **it roams far too freely**.
>> Not only is such behaviour not good science (one needs to be specific
>> and that means specialising), it's not good behaviour quite generally.
>> You are *not* being "creative" and original Ken, you're just being noisy
>> and undisciplined. Your social community generally (and here,
>> specifically), will feed that back to you one way or another (sometimes
>> tacitly and kindly, sometimes quite explicitly and not so kindly) - in
>> either case it's an effort to shape your behaviour to be more
>> acceptable. That's normal, healthy and constructive social feedback and
>> you should be more sensitive to it.
>> You should take that on board, and change the way you behave here and
>> elsewhere. If you find you can't do that, you should get yourself
>> checked out for your own good. I recommend you do the latter anyway,
>> just to be safe.
>> --
>> David Longley
>As a result of our past 'interaction', I Expect that, between
>you and I, it'll do no good to do so, but it's in what fell to me
>to do to do the work inherent in enabling folks to not be 'af-
>raid' of 'unfamiliar' stuff.

Listen carefully Ken. Everyone is neophobic to some extent, including 
you. It's a UCR, and it's very probably (in view) the sine qua non for 
learning (albeit not perhaps in the way we normally think of it).  My 
own work was on this many years ago (see my report "Naloxone Enhances 
Neophobia" in Brit. J. Pharm 1981, or on the web ).. It's a defensive, 
reflexive behaviour. Now given that, what you are talking about, is what 
everyone has to deal with, and not only when they encounter something 
they can say that they don't "know" or "understand" (sometimes we refer 
to these experiences as "exciting", "interesting" or "surprising" (the 
latter being a favourite of learning theorists over the past 30 years or 

The point you need to grasp is that thousands of psychologists and 
behavioural neurobiologists have worked on what they refer to as 
"motivation" and "learning", "reinforcement" and "incentive" 
"discrimination learning" etc and they have been doing this for the best 
part of 40 to 50 years! Approach-withdrawal behaviour, conditioned 
incentive, contrast effects, blocking, latent inhibition, complex 
schedule effects, you name it - there is an enormous amount of work 
which has been done (largely on monoamines, and neuropeptides) but in a 
language which just seems to have passed you by.

What I'm saying here is that you are not telling anyone anything (or at 
least, you shouldn't be!). You are, however, being vague and 
indeterminate, and that's because *you* don't know about the enormous 
body of detailed empirical work which has been painstakingly accumulated 
over the last half century. You may think you brought yourself up to 
speed in neuroscience back in the 80s, but having read AoK, and seen 
what you have to say here, I can assure you that you didn't and you 

Take my word for it, you are roaming far too widely. If you want anyone 
to take you seriously you are going to have to start listening more. You 
aren't and that suggests you have a problem, and one quite unrelated to 
what you're interested in neuroscience.

>There's only the one way to do that.
>In the way that they Dictate with respect to my Being, your
>posts are really-Hurtful, David.

They are meant to make you look at what you are doing/saying 
*critically*. I'm encouraging you to look at your *behaviour*. Your 
verbal behaviour is one facet or fragment of that.  What I am suggesting 
to you may well hurt, but it's no different to suggesting to an 
undiagnosed type II diabetic that they have themselves checked out. 
Leaving that unchecked can also have dire consequences.

>You are welcome to take, or leave, the work I do, and you are
>Free to say whatever you will say to others, but let's you and I
>go our separate ways, OK?

No Ken, I agree with Dr D on this. You need to be challenged and 
forcefully so. Not doing so would be even more 'hurtful'.

>I've Chosen to do this work.
>I shall do it.
>ken [k. p. collins]

But you're not doing any productive work - are you?. I'm suggesting why. 
If you listened a bit more, and acted on the advice/feedback you're 
given, all that *could*, in time, change. You just don't know. What 
you're doing now will, I predict, just leave you frustrated and unhappy. 
It is not productive.
David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list