daniel rosenberg

Daniel, thanks so much for this.

You know, after I published this post, I get like it didn’t make a strong enough point. There was also, in my opinion, not a strong enough “call to action.”

Not only did I not highlight “what you should think,” but also, I failed to point to “what you should do.”

This is my whole reason for writing — and I feel like I really missed the mark.

In regard to the mind v brain conversation; you better believe this a hugely important distinction. One of the first things I learned (that made me fall in love with neuro) was the clear difference between the brain and the mind.

So in response:

1 — I want the reader to understand that science is incredibly powerful as the sum of its parts. Individual studies can spur further research, but we shouldn’t bet on them. In the real world, this means being skeptical when someone cites “scientists have discovered XYZ.” Really? The next question should be: “how many of them, and in which journals were the findings published?”

In further regard to the mind, the message I meant to convey more firmly was that it’s critically important to consider on which level you’re thinking.

Are our narratives about our “objective realities” helping society or hurting it? We may have deeply ingrained principle about what should or should not be, but how does it actually effect real people?

All more to ponder about.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. It means the world to me. 🙏

Like what you read? Give Chris Danilo a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.