gell-mann

The difference is that Feynman was also inspiring, while the Gell-Mann perhaps deserved a second Nobel.

On the other hand, I believe Murray Gell-Mann is beyond controversial in linguistics, as in no linguists who take themselves seriously take Gell-Mann seriously.

Upon encountering the frothy-mouthed bits, you could return to the gell-mann-amnesia-effect node, and treat it as a disclaimer.

The Feynman algorithm was facetiously suggested by Murray Gell-Mann, a colleague of Feynman, in a New York Times interview.

The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect seems to be a specific version of something more general: cognitive dissonance.

Feynman - who, like Gell-Mann, was born in New York City - had no idea what he was talking about.

My understanding of the Feynman Algorithm was that it was basically a joke by Gell-Mann.

I appreciate Gell-Mann's criticism of Feynman, but I did value Feynman's book of anecdotes a tremendous deal.

This is a good time to bring up the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect(xhe).

That's it (usually written Gell-Mann effect I believe), but it actually describes the cognitive dissonance of ignoring that feeling when reading other non-domain stories, so it's the opposite.

Feynman was brilliant and deserved that Nobel as much as Gell-Mann.

You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

I found a quote at cat-v.org which describes the phenomenon you seem to describe: “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.

Quote for Gell-Mann in the article: "Feynman was pretty good, although not as good as he thought he was.

The fallacy of believing everything else you read is known as "Gell-Mann Amnesia".

There's no evidence to tell us whether there was one "Proto-Human" language or many, and there certainly is no data to support Gell-Mann's conjectures about specific properties of Proto-Human.