I guess it's not really on most people's radar. There's little professional incentive in arguing against some old quasi-folk theory that is not believed by any of your peers.
The incentive could exist for scientists who want to write books and be more public facing. However, I think most neuroscientists want to write something that relates to their professional work and is more interesting to them. Triune brain theory just isn't on radar.
Moreover, popular neuroscience is really really hard to do well. You need to find the overlap between the narrow controlled experiments of neuroscience and the messy realm of observable human behavior and experience. Things are that are known in the former are seldom known in the latter. Careful scientists know this and often feel alarmed when asked to talk about things outside the lab.
This leaves much of the writing, by default, to people who aren't concerned about being exact and who are happy to use technical terms as loose metaphors. Many of these aren't neuroscientists, but people who want a little neuro terminology to make their work seem cooler. Accurate neuroscience is not all that important to success in punditry and publishing. For example, psychiatrist Louann Brizendine's books on gender and the brain and economist Paul Zak's oxytocin book The Moral Molecule seem to me to write egregious neurobabble.
(There are certainly modules in the brain -- contemporary work statistically identifies which areas are active at the same time. There's a large cool literature on the default mode network, which is a pretty central concept in neuroscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_network ).
Reallynow|12 years ago
The incentive could exist for scientists who want to write books and be more public facing. However, I think most neuroscientists want to write something that relates to their professional work and is more interesting to them. Triune brain theory just isn't on radar.
Moreover, popular neuroscience is really really hard to do well. You need to find the overlap between the narrow controlled experiments of neuroscience and the messy realm of observable human behavior and experience. Things are that are known in the former are seldom known in the latter. Careful scientists know this and often feel alarmed when asked to talk about things outside the lab.
This leaves much of the writing, by default, to people who aren't concerned about being exact and who are happy to use technical terms as loose metaphors. Many of these aren't neuroscientists, but people who want a little neuro terminology to make their work seem cooler. Accurate neuroscience is not all that important to success in punditry and publishing. For example, psychiatrist Louann Brizendine's books on gender and the brain and economist Paul Zak's oxytocin book The Moral Molecule seem to me to write egregious neurobabble.
(There are certainly modules in the brain -- contemporary work statistically identifies which areas are active at the same time. There's a large cool literature on the default mode network, which is a pretty central concept in neuroscience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_network ).
(edited to fix a typo)