The short answer: I studied neuropsychology initially under Hans-Lukas
Teuber (at NYU, before he moved to MIT), subsequently studied
neuroanatomy under a man whose dissertation adviser had been James
Papez. I studied brain function and behavior in rats many years before
working with humans. I have been working with brain injured humans for
over 20 years. Last fall, was invited speaker at a brain injury
association meeting in Virginia. My activities with organizations such
as the International Neuropsychological Society for the past 20 years
and the Society for Neuroscience (c. 5 years?), Brain Injury
Association of NY, NY Academy of Sciences, etc., etc. has allowed me to
become well-accquainted with numerous people who have made significant
contributions to neuroscience generally and brain injury in particular;
and hours reading the scientific/medical literature related to brain
function (every week), gives me some depth.
Accordingly, I do not hesitate to say that Mr. Sargent's "5 minutes" of
dredging the dregs of the web (he seems PROUD of the short time he
spent!) turned up a lot of undigested nonsense.
Regarding jokes: Mr. Sargent still doesn't get it. My saying "must be
a different Alexander Luria" is a standard form of sarcasm. There is
no other Alexander Luria. (n.b. Teuber and Luria were among the
founding editors of Neuropsychologia) Don't you think in all these
years I would have heard someone (e.g. 2-3 people I know personnaly who
WORKED with Luria) comment oon the oddity of a neurosurgeon with the
same name doing such atrocious human experiments?
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <369B68B0.8A996EB1 at ix.netcom.com> Richard Sargent
<dsargent at ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>Referenced immediately below is the name of the most egotistical,
>pathological liar I've met in years
>>F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>>> A lot of nonsense with a lot of assurance. Possibly a new
>> kkollins?
>>Franks' continual obstreporous posts seem mostly innocuous [don't need
to
>fear that a POINT will ever be made)
>>> SOME "nearly correct" points...
>>wrong again, Frank. Also, If you are going to criticize what I've
written,
>use all the text I've compiled (sometimes I refer to a prior point
(that
>you left out in this thread))
>>> ad hoc comments follow...
>>>>>>>>> >
>> >DK wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Here, I thought of an analogy: right now I am using 50% of my
>>>> - - - - - - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>> >> >Try typing while dancing a jig... tough row to hoe.
>>>> >- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - -
>>>> >The human mind can learn to such expertise combinations of
activities
>> that your
>> >observations do not seem logical. (prior comment) -- Humans cannot
>> demonstrate
>> >superhuman ability, obviously, by doing with proficiciency
activities
>> which
>> >require Total body coordination ( as dancing) and one which
requires
>> hand-eye
>> >coordination during performance of which a sedentary (sitting)
>> position is
>> >preferred.
>> >
>>>>> An obvious distinction to be made: stage of development of a
>> skilled activity. When overlearned to the point of automaticity,
>> attention can be given to other activities concurrently.
>>Frank you left out my first comment which would provide more meaning
to the
>above cited paragraph. It was:
>>That's because the two actions are so dissimilar as to not even belong
in
>the
>same context.
>>>> Do not a priori assume what activities interfere with each
other.
>>We all are behooved to let common sense direct our newsgroup
discussion.
>>> Bear in mind Marcel Kinsbourne's paradigm of right vs. left hand
>> dowel balancing and verbal performance.
>>Please enlighten us
>>> >The human brain is only 10% functional, at best.The first to
outline
>> this
>> >theory, later proved a fact by others,
>>> Hardly a theory; hardly a fact.
>>Frank, you don't seem to be able to read through before you make
comments
>that would answer your questions. Incidentally, those 3 snippets came
from
>a web search, not from my own psyche. It took me 5 minutes.
Obviously, if
>one really wants to find something out, the information age has
dawned!,
>and he can gratify that thirst for knowledge and read about others'
>experiments about similar areas.
>>>>>>> was Australian Neurology Nobel
>> Laureate
>> >Sir John
>> >Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial
Center
>> Boulder,
>> >July 31, 1974.) "The brain indicates
>> >its powers are endless."
>>>> Eccles did important work on spinal reflexes. Lecture may
>> represent his thinking in his dotage, when he may have
become a
>> dualist and a spiritist... (MAY have; not familiar with it)
>>Must you, Frank, resort to 'smearing' legitimate references in a vain
>effort to discredit the post I made?
>>> >In England, John Lorber did autopsies on hydrocephalics. This
illness
>> causes
>> >all but the 1/6th inch layer of brain tissue
>> >to be dissolved by acidic spinal fluid.
>>>> "dissolved by acidic spinal fluid" ?!?! Please tell me
you
>> know this to be a joke!
>>No, Frank, not a joke, the results of a 5 minute web search. Do I
have
>time to ascertain the validity of all findings? Should I care to?
No, but
>if you include multiple refs (I included 3), the truth will usually be
>manifested.
>>> He tested the IQ's of patients before
>> >and during the disease. His findings showed
>> >that IQ remained constant up to death.
>>>> Constant at what level? I have seen a few cases...
>>That's for you to find out Frank, unless you think that your learning
>'tenure' is complete and you need do no more research. How
disparaging you
>are about real historical men who conducted honest studies.
>>> Also, the "IQ" does not tell the whole story (and some IQ
tests
>> tell less than others).
>>You forgot those three all important letters, IMO (in my opinion). I
guess
>you think you have 3 more important letters (PhD). Well, discrediting
ALL
>valid references used militates against the search for truth (Or
should I
>say scientific fact, Frank, in case you're inclined to religious
>hysteria?) and against the scientific method.
>>> Although over 90% of brain tissue was
>> >destroyed by the disease, it had no
>> >impact on what we consider to be normal intelligence.
>>>> >Russian neurosurgeon Alexandre Luria
>>>> Any relation to the Russian neuropsychologist of the
same
>> name? A.R. Luria?? I am on a first-name basis with
THAT
>> Luria's last doctoral student...
>>Well, obviously, its not the same one. Your egotism and
high-mindedness
>have spurred you to speak out of turn once more, eh Frank?
>>> proved that the 1/3 bulk of frontal lobes
>> >are mostly dormant.
>>>>> Must be a different Alexander Luria.
>>> The one I know is
>> famous for demonstrating the complex and devastating
>> effects of frontal lobe injury.
>>Two words: Proof read
>>> He did this byperforming ablation (surgical removal)
>> >experiments on persons. He gave physiological and psychological
tests
>> before,
>> >cut out parts and
>> >whole frontal lboes, the re-tested after.
>>>>>>> His conclusion: removal of part or
>> >all of frontal lobes causes no major change
>> >in brain function, (some change in mood alteration). The frontal
lobes
>> are
>> >mostly dormant, asleep.
>>>> And of course, in the light of MANY, MANY subsequent
>> observations of patients with frontal lobe injuries,
some
>> by people nearly as famous as Luria,
>>How would you know, Frank? You've repeatedly demonstrated ignorance
with
>your lack of knowledge about those examples, or paradigms, if your
tongue
>is inclined to highfalutin.
>>> some relatively unkown
>> (e.g. me),
>>One thing we definitely can conclude --you, Frank, are not a valid
source,
>scorning sincere researchers, mocking legitimate test procedures, and
>generally showing little respect for the scientific method.
>>> and in the light of animal experiments, this is
>> such utter nonsense that you do indeed qualify as the
next
>> kkollins!
>>Ahh, pathetic .. truly a science experiment gone bad. You end this
>foolish reply of yours Frank, with insults to a person who hasn't even
>spoken in this whole time!
>>> The extent of the information you can access on the Web
>> >approaches absurdity, and certainly will constitute 'enough'
>> information for an
>> >informed conclusion to be postulated.
>> >
>>Frank, you have demonstrated yourself to be a maladjusted individual
with a
>repulsive personality. Please discontinue your meaningless chatter.
>>> >My name is Peter, not Richard, as the Sender name may misinform
you.
>> >
>> >Peter Sargent
>> >
>>>> Well, let us at least hope he knows what he is talking about
>> when he tells us his name.
>>Leave my father out of this, you disgusting person! All he has done
is own
>the computer, hence the difference in Sender name. He doesn't have
time
>for this kind of talk. I'm sorry you do. You must be an incredible
loser,
>Frank.
>>I am simply a neuroscience dilletante because psychology and the
chemical
>mechanism that drives it is very interesting to me as well as an
extreme
>appeal to new computer technology.
>>Peter L. Sargent
>>