I think the *desired* takeaways might have been 1) exactly what you said @gregoryrsl.bsky.social (scientists should talk more to non-scientists about science) and 2) professors & scientists are real people too - that dichotomy (scientist vs. real) might be more manufactured than real.

Getting past the term is part of confronting the reality of nuance & complexity in emotion & the brain, and as long as scientists hold onto it, we'll be stuck in an antiquated conceptual framework that will hold affective neuroscience back. #SayNoToLimbic

The "limbic system" is a story, not a real neural structure. Brain regions often included, like the amygdala or hippocampus, are of course very real.

But limbic? There is no "system" there.

Agreed, but I think this tired, inaccurate term is in need of disposal, not replacement. It represents an ill-defined concept of emotion in the brain *that is not evidence-based* and hurts scientific progress. It no more needs replacement than the idea of humors!

I've heard that's a 'best practice' actually!

I do think there's an important issue that isn't being addressed: If we value exploration, creativity, innovation... then *publishing* needs to OK w/ unusual designs, null effects, etc. Otherwise we're just putting all the scientific risk on people who can't weather the consequences alone.

FWIW, this "debate" does have kind of a lot of *agreement*. There are roles for small labs and big consortia. Interesting questions about data sharing, standardization, innovation, funding (zero sum?), rigor/reproducibility...