>This is not a rebuttal to the myth. Imagine I'm talking about a car,
You're simply asserting that the car is analogous to the brain to make an argument. Humans designed the car and fully understand how it works. If you take out the engine - it doesn't run. The brain is not the same - tons of evidence of neural plasticity. There is simply no analogy here. Also, the author is a subject matter expert in cognitive neuroscience so they do have credibility IMO.
>But we have a huge body of evidence showing that there is a big difference in how the left vs. right brain processes information and that different brain regions are highly specialized, but that their specialized functions don't map cleanly into the language we were already describing human behavior with.
You're saying we only use certain parts of our brain for certain things, and the author is saying (with citations) that multiple regions of the brain are involved in most brain tasks. To me, this makes sense when you read about people who got brain surgery or whatever and then their brain re-wired itself, etc. Clearly there is a disagreement here. Can you point to this huge body of evidence that disagrees with the author?
Strokes or head traumas can produce very specific loss of abilities in adults.
I am not quite sure why this is being "debunked" now. Perhaps in part as status jockeying, i.e. "I'm ahead of the curve and not stuck with knowledge that was en vogue 10 years ago and all the Discovery-watching plebs has internalized" and in part a strange new dualistic movement that seeks to mystify the brain for some reason, perhaps in service of blank slatism.
You're simply asserting that the car is analogous to the brain to make an argument. Humans designed the car and fully understand how it works. If you take out the engine - it doesn't run. The brain is not the same - tons of evidence of neural plasticity. There is simply no analogy here. Also, the author is a subject matter expert in cognitive neuroscience so they do have credibility IMO.
>But we have a huge body of evidence showing that there is a big difference in how the left vs. right brain processes information and that different brain regions are highly specialized, but that their specialized functions don't map cleanly into the language we were already describing human behavior with.
You're saying we only use certain parts of our brain for certain things, and the author is saying (with citations) that multiple regions of the brain are involved in most brain tasks. To me, this makes sense when you read about people who got brain surgery or whatever and then their brain re-wired itself, etc. Clearly there is a disagreement here. Can you point to this huge body of evidence that disagrees with the author?