Comments on: Early Oliver Sacks and Neuroanthropology Today

By: Who you callin’ a ‘neuroconstructivist’?! « Neuroanthropology

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:33:28 +0000

[...] calls himself a ‘neuroanthropologist,’ as Jovan Maud at Culture Matters pointed out to me and Daniel highlights in a recent, more thorough post on the relation of what we’re doing to what Sachs has done (see also [...]

By: Encephalon 68: A carnival of neuroscience « Ouroboros

Encephalon 68: A carnival of neuroscience « Ouroboros — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:46:37 +0000

[...] and enter into their situation and their world and relate it to one’s own.” Daniel Lende of Neuroanthropology argues that this effectively summarizes the mission goals of the modern neuroanthropologist. Over [...]

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:27:14 +0000

The latest Four Stone Hearth Blog Carnival, which includes this post, is HERE. Please check it out.

By: The Four Stone Hearth Anthropology Blog Carnival | Quiche Moraine

The Four Stone Hearth Anthropology Blog Carnival | Quiche Moraine — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:33:11 +0000

[...] out this video of Oliver Sacks on Neuroanthropology, then read to see how Daniel thinks neuroanthropology has advanced since. What’s that you [...]

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:06:12 +0000

I’m an ap psychology student, and there’s one question that has been on my mind since the beginning of this class but which is so interdisciplinary that it’s very hard not only to find a context for the question but to sort out a wording that actually makes any sense. First of all, in the course of this class there is a unit which involves Neuroscience, which both surprised me and didn’t surprise me. Obviously if you’re going to discuss the brain you’ll have to discuss neuroscience to some degree, but I had always thought of psychology and Neuroscience as separate but related topics. Now I’m confronted with the implication that one is a subset of the other, but which is which? Or are they both subsets of another topic, such as biology or epistemology (the latter seems a bit of a stretch to me). Secondly, one of the reasons I took psychology is that I’m interested in trying to understand humans as a whole, as an integrated being or subject, for the lack of a less detached phrase. But both my psychology and philosophy classes are approaching the subject in a separated, split way; perhaps a better word would be an organized but fractured manner; which is giving me the impression that human beings are rather like the stained glass windows that you see in cathedrals and churches: carefully divided pieces which make a synthesized whole. But if you delve into the intricacy of any one of these subjects–personality, memory, neuroscience, social psychology, etc.–you know this can’t possibly be true. Which is leading me to suspect that the overall question that I signed up for psychology hoping for some kind of answer–or beginnings of an answer to–is the one that everyone in their various fields is trying to answer.

By: ai

ai — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:17:07 +0000

Very nice overview of some of the important developments in bioculturalism – thanks for that! I’m glad to see Oyama’s work mentioned in this context.