Michael Kilgard was very soft and well spoken, and knew his stuff about huberman. He referenced one of andy’s controversial papers (Long distance regen, De Lima et al 2016) in a very nice light, indicating that he is either ignorant of its issues or ‘playing the game’ so to speak. I would be inclined to think he is a game player, given the way that he has been able to push forward implantable devices that can actually help neuroplasticity. I do like the way he is somewhat careful about the science and its impact, making him seem more humble than huberman. You really get to see the contrast of two types of scientists with similar outcomes, making it big in either science communication or scientific devices/applications, but with more/less humility/rigor (Michael>andy). But andy is much more bold and a better communicator, which is why he goes out and says some more rash statements throughout, especially later on, about his hopes for the future. For example the ‘certanty’ that he speaks with for curing blindness. So while andy took away some in this episode, michael did a great job not being too strong with his statements. It felt like he was going to get more into mechanism, and that andy would lead him there, but it never really got too mechanistic, which was ok, but andy made it feel/seem like it did which i think was misleading. Just because you mention neuromodulators doesnt mean thats mechanism for how/what they are doing. But the idea i took away was neuromodulators (except dopamine)=plasticity, which i feel is very simplified, but kind of true with what we actually know. An overall good listen, especially for a neuroscientist or someone interested in plasticity, but maybe a bit too niche for a general audience.