Talk:Barbara Arrowsmith Young

There's a problem here
Where's the evidence she "overcame" her learning disabilities, aside from flat claims made by herself?--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked that slightly. It now says : "an autobiographical account of her own severe learning disabilities and the method she developed to overcome them". Even in its previous form, the lede sentence in question also made it clear that it is an autobiographical account. So it is obvious that that is what she has said about herself. You can choose to reject it but Norman Doidge's chapter also states that she no longer has "any noticeable bottlenecks in her mental processes." I have seen no reliable sources which have ever questioned that she overcame her own difficulties, only ones which have questioned whether or not her method can help other people with similar difficulties, or at least any better than other methods. If you can find such a source, please post it here. Voceditenore (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

According to a student's review of the arrowsmith program, he (I'm quite sure it was a he) said somewhere that Norman Doidge is not a Neuroscientist but a psychologist and used the guy's biography as a reference. He basically I for one agree with that. This program or any program should have neuoroscientific endorsement. The expert opinion of a neuroscientist outwieghs the opinion of a psychologist. Another was a psychologist Dr Detterman who said the same for the 'brain training' programs. I'll see if I can find these reviews.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doidge is a psychiatrist. All you had to do is (a) read Norman Doidge or (b) read the references. You don't need to find some student's review of his book to find out that he is a psychiatrist. This is not an article about her program. It is about Barbara Arrowsmith Young. The text currently mentions what Doidge, who wrote a chapter on her in his book, said about her program, but it is countered by the criticism of at least three prominent neuroscientists, all referenced. The reader can make up their own mind. The article makes it clear that it is she who says she overcame her learning difficulties, not Wikipedia. It makes it clear that her program is viewed with skepticism by several cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists, who have the "last word" in the article. There is no way that this article could be read as an "endorsement" of her program. Quite the contrary, in fact. So what exactly is your problem? Are you saying that her program which is (rightly or wrongly) very notable cannot be mentioned in the article unless an "endorsement" of it from a neuroscientist can be found? If so, that is absurd and completely contrary to the goal of an encyclopedia. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixing my brain
Should the documentary be linked there? Seems more like an advertisement for the Arrowsmith program. I'd like some opinions here.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be. First of all, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary is mentioned (and rightly so) in the article. Secondly, per WP:EL it gives the`reader the opportunity of seeing and hearing the subject of the article with material directly related to her biography. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is not an "advertisement" for the program. It contains criticisms/skepticism by both Adele Diamond (a very eminent neuroscientist) and Linda Siegel, whose comments open the documentary and which she elaborates on later in the film. Furthermore the commentary from two of the four parents explained why they withdrew their children after one year I strongly suggest you actually watch the documentary before making comments like that. Voceditenore (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)