Talk:The Brain that Changes Itself

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MGBare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

new page
comments welcome

I apologize if this comment syntax is innapropriet, but I wanted to mention that besides the initial summery, the article isn't anything but an outline of the first chapter. And a poor one as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.9.235 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the book right now. It is a very interesting book, with a very poorly written Wikipedia article. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception
I too am reading this book. It's amazing. I would like to know a lot about the reception the book received on how exaggerated some parts of the book may be. I've seen comments here and there (probably mostly at Amazon) in which some claimed it exaggerated a little too much, that Doidge was something of a 'true believer', & etc. So Reception for this book is very important.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A Pioneering Effort
Doidge's book is an excellent one but it was also groundbreaking in that the entire concept of neuroplasticity was new. He is one of only a handful of pioneers in this area (Bachy-Rita, Chaney, Ratey, Schacter, and Kandel are others). Their collective neuroplasticity research withstood the rigors of research but because the concept of a "brain changing itself" went against hundreds of years of theories, it took some undeserved hits. Of course, this is all part of the scientific research process but it can be confusing for others not versed in a particular field.

The book's reception was quite good and its sales appeared to match its reception. This being said, books in the neuroscience field - even notable ones change rapidly - not because they are incorrect but because the "new" is prolific. Therefore, until it reaches a classic status within the field, I'm not certain it should be covered in a separate article. With regards the the book under discussion, I suspect it will reach classic status quite rapidly as it is consistently referenced in most professional articles in the field. Sinclairindex (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanded
71 editors and 166 edits in 16 years and all we had was a stub? I expanded the article. Grorp (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)