Thanks, but Iâve already seen them. Presuming the implication here is something like âGiven these developments, donât you think you should walk back what you originally said?â, the answer is âNot really, noâ: subsequent responses may be better, but that is irrelevant to whether earlier ones were objectionable; one may be making good points, but one can still behave badly whilst making them.
(Apologies if I mistake what you are trying to say here. If it helps generally, I expectâper my parent commentâto continue to affirm what Iâve said before however the morass of commentary elsewhere on this post shakes out.)
Just want to be clear, the main post isnât about analyzing eigenmodes with EEG data. Itâs very funny that when I am intellectually honest enough to say I donât know about one specific EEG analysis that doesnât exist and is not referenced in the main text, people conclude that I donât have expertise to comment on fMRI data analysis or the nature of neural representations.
Meanwhile QRI does not have expertise to comment on many of the things they discuss, but they are super confident about everything and in the original posts especially did not clearly indicate what is speculation versus what is supported by research.
I continue to be unconvinced with the arguments laid out, but I do think both the tone of the conversation and Mike Johnsonâs answers improved after he was criticized. (Correlation? Causation?)
Generally speaking, I agree with the aphorism âYou catch more flies with honey than vinegar;â
For what itâs worth, I interpreted Gregoryâs critique as an attempt to blow up the conversation and steer away from the object level, which felt odd. Iâm happiest speaking of my research, and fielding specific questions about claims.
Thanks, but Iâve already seen them. Presuming the implication here is something like âGiven these developments, donât you think you should walk back what you originally said?â, the answer is âNot really, noâ: subsequent responses may be better, but that is irrelevant to whether earlier ones were objectionable; one may be making good points, but one can still behave badly whilst making them.
(Apologies if I mistake what you are trying to say here. If it helps generally, I expectâper my parent commentâto continue to affirm what Iâve said before however the morass of commentary elsewhere on this post shakes out.)
Gregory, Iâll invite you to join the object-level discussion between Abby and I.
Just want to be clear, the main post isnât about analyzing eigenmodes with EEG data. Itâs very funny that when I am intellectually honest enough to say I donât know about one specific EEG analysis that doesnât exist and is not referenced in the main text, people conclude that I donât have expertise to comment on fMRI data analysis or the nature of neural representations.
Meanwhile QRI does not have expertise to comment on many of the things they discuss, but they are super confident about everything and in the original posts especially did not clearly indicate what is speculation versus what is supported by research.
I continue to be unconvinced with the arguments laid out, but I do think both the tone of the conversation and Mike Johnsonâs answers improved after he was criticized. (Correlation? Causation?)
Generally speaking, I agree with the aphorism âYou catch more flies with honey than vinegar;â
For what itâs worth, I interpreted Gregoryâs critique as an attempt to blow up the conversation and steer away from the object level, which felt odd. Iâm happiest speaking of my research, and fielding specific questions about claims.