Lurker > COVxy

X-Pac_Heat posted...

Was that *always* supposed to be her hair?

I thought those were just cables from the helmet.

It's just the cables, looks like they just gave her hair in the later game.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

mario2000 posted...

She looks the same.

Naw, in the second she has lipstick, hair, and a more petite nose.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

What's the second image from?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's hard to understand what 'success' means here, never mind boiling down to a percentage. There doesn't seem to be a "study" in the OP.

Seems like silly clickbait, which seems hypocritical.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Pogo_Marimo posted...

catboy0_0 posted...

you don't need to know anything anymore because you can just look it up, therefore people know less because there's no incentive to know things

I.Q. isn't a measure of what you know, it's a measure of your cognitive reasoning.

It seems to increase with education, so I would say it's probably both. Which makes sense since it was originally developed to reflect grades in school.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

t_paynes_ghost posted...

I read the first chapter of his latest book. It was a bit longwinded but the analogy to the point he was making, and the point he was making resonated well with me.

You always know when an academic is bullshitting you when he's writing a pop-sci book outside of his expertise.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Pogo_Marimo posted...

K181 posted...

Isn't 100 supposed to be the average regardless? So, even if humanity was getting dumber, wouldn't 100 just be the average still?

I'm guessing there basing it on an empirical metric by which the quotient is derived. I would interested in how they do so, though, since as far as I recall they base the scores off a different test every year.

Anyways, I blame the internet and social media.

They actually used a sample of data in which the scaling was the same. The scale gets rescaled much less often than you would might think.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This is at least the 2nd time you've made this topic.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

hyperpsycho posted...

How did this dipshit get to be a professor?

His actual work is just boring old normal personality psych stuff.

Everything he talks about in public is almost completely unrelated to his academic credentials.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I mean, I don't really take any issue with what he's said in that clip other than the end references to Jungian shit that got cut off at the end.

He is a charlatan though.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Shadowplay posted...

Gene editing is an inevitability, so anyone crying over it in general is goddamn ignorant.

The entire science community is in an uproar about this. It's super not good, the way it was handled.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I wish I had a 40 hour a week job lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I thought HBO was working on an adaptation.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I made my point clearer in edits.

Either way, the heterogeneity of both the etiology and classification in mental health is a well established problem, which is why the NIMH abandoned the DSM and are pushing RDoC approaches.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I should also mention that exposure therapy works well because fear conditioning was systematically worked out very early on, and actively disregards patient's subjective sense and deliberately makes them uncomfortable.

So the form of let the patient's subjective sense drive treatment type of holism doesn't make much sense.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Exposure therapy is pretty much clinical psychology's only claim to fame, and only treats anxiety disorders, and disorders stemming from such.

But I was moreover referencing biomedical treatments.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

Many different disorders or similar disorders with different causes can be helped by the same treatments.

With very low success rates overall. That's the big issue. Essentially, one reason that transition may have a high success rate is that the extremeness of the treatment is a selection in and of itself (SSRIs, for example, have a much higher success rate in people with extreme depression, and likely indicates vastly different conditions, not just depression, but two separate biological conditions). Those with mild symptoms certainly wouldn't go to such extremes, but are still experiencing discomfort.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

Nothing disagreeable here. It is only disagreeable if you attempt to use sexually dymorphic brain activity as a qualifying requirement to being diagnosed with GD which is what TC wants to do, and what my disagreement is with.

And what if those with sexually dimorphic features juxtaposed to their sex are fundamentally different than those without in terms of the underlying etiology of their condition, which seems plausible enough, no?

Seems to me that different course of treatment is entirely reasonable.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

You realize by definition GD has a social component since genders are socially constructed right?

All available evidence suggests that gender identity is fairly immutable, both subjectively from qualitative reports from patients, but also experimentally in (unfortunately) humans and in rodents. Sexual dimorphism in the brain happens quite early in development (in-utero) and is relatively stable thereafter. Gender expression and gender roles are certainly socially constructed. But gender dysphoria wouldn't be such a big deal if it were possible to just decide to identify a different way, or move to a location where your interests are more related to your sex. The trouble is that immutable aspect.

My take from the literature is that there seems to be an organizational effect that's relatively immutable. Strikingly, MtF transwomen are are more common than FtM transmen, at least in some preliminary analyses of prevalence. Similarly this is true with autism, which also seems to have some role on sexual dimorphism as well.

Anyway, this discussion is kinda neither here nor there for the current topic and your objections, which is why it kinda devolved into a stream of consciousness.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

COVxy posted...

ssjevot posted...

There is zero reason to do it. No one in the field wants to do or would do what you are saying so the whole thing is idiotic.

Yeah no one was to use fMRI as a basis for if someone can or cannot have depression or GD. I will stand by that statement.

"can and cannot"?

In any direct and earnest reading of the TC's message, there's no way to jump from what he is saying to something like "can and cannot", but moreover "does and does not", or "has type 1 or has type 2". You're the one who has been sticking this "gatekeeping" thing in there. Which may or may not be his goal, but certainly isn't written in the post.

Literally millions of dollars of grant funding is being funneled into projects attempting to use imaging to generate new methodology and test out existing methodology to stick people in the scanner and tell who "does or does not" or to empirically categorize people into biologically determined disorders.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

There is zero reason to do it. No one in the field wants to do or would do what you are saying so the whole thing is idiotic.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Everything has limitations, right. Including behavioral measures as well, and especially including subjective evaluations by clinicians attempting to stick people into post-hoc categorizations of behavior.

So where have we gotten in this conversation exactly?

You framed the goal of individualized medicine in psychiatry as some silly notion that nobody in the field seriously considers, but in fact it is currently a booming field, especially in the qMRI field.

BOLD itself has problems, of course, and I never suggested that as a particularly proper measure for these things, but that's not to say that it's completely infeasible, as it does have quite a bit of convergent validity, and absolutely reflects neural activity, though filtered and indirectly.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

COVxy posted...

I've worked in nonhuman primates before, and am currently finishing my PhD in a lab that does primarily MR imaging. I don't need to read anything on wikipedia.

Already got my PhD. And clearly you do, since you apparently don't know any of the issues related to it.

Every method has limitations. Literally every method. Calcium indicators mess directly with neural dynamics. LFP's can come from literally anywhere in the brain. Doesn't mean they aren't useful. All neuroscience methods involved in collecting neural data require extensive signal processing, extensive statistical methodology. That's just the nature of recording from a complex biological environment.

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, for whatever reason, and doing so selectively.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I've worked in nonhuman primates before, and am currently finishing my PhD in a lab that does primarily MR imaging. I don't need to read anything on wikipedia.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

That's literally a treatment we don't understand fully the mechanism behind because of the complexity of the brain is it relates to depression and you are saying we need to diagnosis depression based on brain measures?

No, I'm saying current research AND treatment is done by categorizing people into symptom clusters that in reality are both too vague and post-hoc to be useful in understanding when a biological treatment will be effective.

ssjevot posted...

There is no way to use electrodes on human subjects outside epilepsy patients. PET is even more expensive and hard to get permission to do because of the radioactive isotopes involved. And yes fMRI is an extremely crude measure. I combine it with EEG at the same time to deal with issues in the temporal resolution, but it's nothing close to what you can do with electrodes and the data analysis is messy by requirement. The whole field of fMRI is controversial because of the all the stats fudging needed to even get any usable data.

Trust me, I know BOLD is far and away from a direct measure. That doesn't make it crude, and certainly doesn't mean that technological developments aren't being made to ensure both the interpretability and reliability. The latter statement is entirely incorrect lol. Not to mention, BOLD is certainly not the only thing you get from MRI lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

Because you can't be bothered to read my posts. Even if it could be used to daignose it's much to expensive to be used practically and offers no advantages over the current methods used.

Current methods lead to 30% success rate with SSRI's in depression. There are over 1000 permutations of possible forms of "major depression". Diagnosis and treatment is too vague and imprecise for actual progress in psychiatry. So, yes, the goal of high precision individualized medicine in psychiatry is certainly there and of interest to the field. It's expensive, of course, but so is all medicine.

ssjevot posted...

crude measure of brain activity instead of relying on the behavioral measures used by experts in the field?

Who said anything about crude measures? The field is heavily developing, becoming increasingly sophisticated in it's approaches and quantifications. Secondly, output of a system can be produced by many different ways, 1+4 = 5, but so does 7 - 2. Understanding the underlying biological mechanisms will lead to better more precise treatment.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's not like you engaged with my earlier post lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

hypocampus

lol
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ssjevot posted...

Should we also do scans for everyone who says they are depressed

Yes, if it aides in diagnosis and treatment. Depression is an extremely heterogeneous category. Not saying that the research is quite there for that, but the possibility certainly exists.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I'm not gonna hold my breath lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

There seems to be a misuderstanding that there's some sort of hierarchy of things in science, that law is something above theory.

That's not really how it works. There are no "facts" in science. Only data, and all data are uncertain. A theory is some explanation for the way that data were generated. There are no proven theories, just one with heavy support, there's always a chance that the theory will be overturned/modified (and is highly likely in almost all cases. It's not as though a "law" has a strict definition, but most of the time it's simply a mathematical description of a phenomenon. This can be, but isn't often, devoid of any theory.

Anybody who says "this is how it is because science has proven it" isn't an expert of any sort. There's a reason that when you hear a scientist talk about science, it's often couched in probabilistic language.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Spend less time scouring the internet for covienient strawmen.

Otherwise some might think your motives are in the realm of misinformation
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

You know that any topic about IQ is going to be a shitpile on CE.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

There's zero chance you actually believe this is clever.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

"Article"

Lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Zanzenburger posted...

COVxy posted...

We have a mirror mounted on top of our head coil, since we have people doing tasks in the scanner and they need to see the task projected on the screen at the end of the bore. If I go in without that mirror, which lets me look through the bore as if I were in a wide open space, I get really claustrophobic. With the mirror, however, it's easy breezing. I think they should always have a mirror in there for patients, even if it's unnecessary.

That would be really helpful.

At least the tube had the two openings. Apparently some are fully enclosed?

I've never seen a scanner like that, but I've only worked on 3 different scanners.

The big thing I've seen is that the tech has a lot to do with how comfortable the experience is for the patient. Some essentially just throw patients/subjects in there, while others do a lot of checking with the body position and comfort levels. A good tech means good data in my field.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

We have a mirror mounted on top of our head coil, since we have people doing tasks in the scanner and they need to see the task projected on the screen at the end of the bore. If I go in without that mirror, which lets me look through the bore as if I were in a wide open space, I get really claustrophobic. With the mirror, however, it's easy breezing. I think they should always have a mirror in there for patients, even if it's unnecessary.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The amount of people who get their panties in a twist about affirmative action is just absurd.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

COVxy posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Your actual IQ score stays consistent

Nah. Plenty of evidence to show that it doesn't, but this common misconception still exists.

Then wouldn't that be a failure of the IQ test to not provide accurate age compensation?

If you have a strong underlying theory that "intelligence" is some immutable characteristic, then any discovery of variation due to life events, such as increased education, would either demonstrate evidence against that theory or the measurement device. It seems unlikely that "intelligence" is immutable though, given that the brain is mutable. Though, I think the field of intelligence suffers from the inability to properly define their constructs.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Your actual IQ score stays consistent

Nah. Plenty of evidence to show that it doesn't, but this common misconception still exists.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

awesome999 posted...

uwnim posted...

In 7th grade. That's too long ago to really be at all relevant now though.

Actually, IQ stays fairy constant throughout your life

Nah.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

It's only "pseudoscience" in the sense that it doesn't meet some of the arbitrary qualifiers to make it official science.

Lmao.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

monkmith posted...

IdiotMachine posted...

Like one common room where you can wash hands and stuff, then bunch of single stalls with floor-to-ceiling doors instead of the crap we get now.

this please, get rid of the fucking piss fountains...

You say that, but I don't think you're ready to wait in the lines that this would create.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

josifrees posted...

COVxy posted...

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

This is bad trolling.

Yup Karl Popper is a troll

Nope, but you are.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

This is bad trolling.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

What a shitbucket of a topic.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's "a-nahl-geezic" not "anal-geezic". Sir, the pills go in your mouth.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

LightHawKnight posted...

So how is this idiot a professor?

Tbf, he's not a real professor.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]