<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pinker and the Brain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/pinker-and-the-brain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/pinker-and-the-brain/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Becca</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/pinker-and-the-brain/#comment-18257</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Becca]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=11034#comment-18257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I disagree with the idea that one becomes a better scientist by reading science and so forth.  As a scientist, I&#039;ve found that I&#039;ve enriched my scientific mind by reading outside of my discipline (and yes, even novels).  Similarly, I think good writers are well-read, but they also need to have done more than just read novels, otherwise it&#039;ll be a pretty boring book.  

I think the (undersold) advantage of the Internet is how easy it is to get at least a basic education outside of one&#039;s discipline.  I can find loads of classical literature online, read blogs by people who work in other fields and quickly learn historical facts from wikipedia.  I do think that the information age changes the way we think -- and rightly so.  For example, in my own field, medicine, even 20 years ago the emphasis was on fact memorization.  Now, facts are always literally at our fingertips, so the emphasis has changed on how to analyze facts and synthesize new understanding.  It makes for a much richer academic discipline.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree with the idea that one becomes a better scientist by reading science and so forth.  As a scientist, I&#8217;ve found that I&#8217;ve enriched my scientific mind by reading outside of my discipline (and yes, even novels).  Similarly, I think good writers are well-read, but they also need to have done more than just read novels, otherwise it&#8217;ll be a pretty boring book.  </p>
<p>I think the (undersold) advantage of the Internet is how easy it is to get at least a basic education outside of one&#8217;s discipline.  I can find loads of classical literature online, read blogs by people who work in other fields and quickly learn historical facts from wikipedia.  I do think that the information age changes the way we think &#8212; and rightly so.  For example, in my own field, medicine, even 20 years ago the emphasis was on fact memorization.  Now, facts are always literally at our fingertips, so the emphasis has changed on how to analyze facts and synthesize new understanding.  It makes for a much richer academic discipline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bahamund</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/pinker-and-the-brain/#comment-18247</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bahamund]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=11034#comment-18247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, as you note, it is a &#039;general&#039; statement. Isn&#039;t it generally true that if you want to be a  good writer, you need to be a &#039;strong&#039; reader, and to be so you need to be an avid reader? It seems Prof. Pinker talks about necessary, not sufficient, condition of being a writer.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, as you note, it is a &#8216;general&#8217; statement. Isn&#8217;t it generally true that if you want to be a  good writer, you need to be a &#8216;strong&#8217; reader, and to be so you need to be an avid reader? It seems Prof. Pinker talks about necessary, not sufficient, condition of being a writer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rita R. Handrich</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/pinker-and-the-brain/#comment-18243</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rita R. Handrich]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=11034#comment-18243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Love that title! :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love that title! :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
