Let’s be realistic here, just because 2 people practically
study the similar things about the brain does not mean that argument will not
arise. Noah Charney will present his studies of “top-down” thinking and “bottom-up”
thinking and how they relate to the left brain thinking and right brain
thinking. Even though Taylor will agree in some aspects of the similarities of thinking,
she will bring herself to tell him that his studies are to biased and simple.
Charney did studies of how we think about Art and how we as people interpret it
in our minds. But that is where in lies
the problem, although he was able to break down thinking into those 2 categories,
he focuses solely on Art. Taylor on the other hand studied her brains thinking,
as she was having a stroke, trying to do basic human activities in the morning.
She talks about the experience in the most detailed way possible a person can
get. She tells us what part of thinking shuts off or turns on. She gave us a
detailed journey through the process of her damaged brain. Which in the end
gives us the most to learn by and understand how exactly our thinking works.
Ultimately she would be more dominate in the conversation and commend him on
his “top-down” and “ bottom-up” thinking , but would reiterate that he could go
further with his studies beyond Art.
I like the first point you brought up about how 2 people studying the same thing ending up in argument. That's true, especially how Taylor really emphasizes the study of the brain. I would agree on the part of Charney being biased on his studies. If i were there, I would side with Taylor because she knew about the brain functions as you mentioned her detailed experience affecting her daily functions. She seems to have more to talk about in this dinner discussion and you seemed to have focused more on her ideology, so I would ultimately agree with her and talk about the "top-down" and "bottom -up" thinking because there might be psychological aspects that don't correlate.
ReplyDelete