Lurker > COVxy

Values and morals are luxaries that those who are well off have.

Most of the rest of the world does whatever is necessary to get by.

---

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

Also, finishing your PhD at 25 is probably a bit rare.

---

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

Ultima Dragon posted...

I read that you don't create any more neurons after 13 (fucking 13!)

It was thought that no neurons developed after birth for a while. This has been shown to be false, but the extent and purpose of adult neurogenesis is unknown. Mostly found to be restricted to particular portions of the brain, like the dentate gyrus.

Never the less, average peak of development for prefrontal cortex is about 25, evidence from cortical thinning at least.

---

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

I blame industry mostly for taking advantage. Raise the bar because they can, not because it's necessary. I would guess the majority of jobs that on paper require a degree absolutely should not.

That doesn't stop me from complaining about the modern cesspool that is undergrads, though.

---

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

For PhD programs, usually the advice is spend as little time on classes and classwork as possible, but since you're using this master's presumably as a stepping stone to a PhD program, you want to ensure A's. Is this a master's program that encorporates research as well? Do you need to submit a master's thesis?

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

What I've "doubled down on" is the reality of how far you can deviate from the level of accuracy we have given what you're saying we don't know. You don't go from a few thousandths of a percent to anything remotely approaching significant. You just don't. It doesn't happen.

We're not talking about accuracy of an estimate with some sort of symmetrical noise here. We're talking about a measure that has multiple contributing factors of which you have no reliable information for how much each is contributing.

Very different situation. I can reason with noisy estimates. I cannot reason with information with multiple unquantified causes.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

50% of all trans people have GID but don't report

Not about reporting, about getting diagnosed. As in, goes to a psychiatrist or psychologist, which entails both cost and stigma.

It's a pretty heavy selection factor.

I'm saying from the numbers you provided, we have no idea. You could be right, but you could be wrong. But you have doubled down on your own intuition rather than data.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

What do I think it means, exactly? You keep saying that but providing no further clarification.

The result from the comparison comes from many factors, which i have outlined, but there's no way to determine the weight of each of them.

---

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

You can do it, it just doesn't mean what you think it means, and there's not enough information to discern the truth.

I'm not saying the percentages of the unknowns are any value, because I have no way to determine that from the available information.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

backed by data.

No, the statistics you provided are consistent with many situations. Equally or more likely to a bunch of people identifying as trans while being diagnosed with NOT GID are a bunch of people identifying as trans who would be diagnosed with GiD if they sought diagnosis.

Saying shit is backed by data because you fiddled with some descriptive statistics without thinking about what they mean is why people don't like the word statistics.

---

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

No, that's what you want them to mean because then it falls in line with the conclusions you had already drawn.

---

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

You use available statistics to inform you based on what they can tell you, not what you wish they could.

---

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

I'll make it pretty explicit:
People who self report trans identity (sr) = people diagnosed with gid (dg) + those with gid who haven't been diagnosed (ndg) + those who identify without gid (ing)

sr - dg = ndg + ing

Two unknowns. You cannot conclude what you want to conclude.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

So what's your argument? That it's 0.01% and not 0.005%? Because even if the rate is double the reported rate, you're talking no significant difference. Nearly zero doubled is still nearly zero.

No, my "argument" is that the number discrepancy doesn't give you any info about the number you want to use to demonstrate your point...

---

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

COVxy posted...

To be clear, those seeking diagnosis and those who have the condition are likely two different things. Prevalence of diagnosis, especially with mental disorders, do not reliably reflect prevalence in the population.

In other words, self reports of identity and prevalence of GID do not provide you with the info you seek, which is how many of those who self identify would not be diagnosed.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

That's what I thought.

I explained to you that the numerical comparison you made doesn't lead to the conclusion you came to.

But ok.

---

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

Ok.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

No, I'm pretty sure there are exactly right, but feel free to provide your own numbers if they're that far off.

I already explained it to you in the post you never responded to.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

I'm going off of this estimate:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/how-many-adults-identify-as-transgender-in-the-united-states/

Regardless of the particular estimate, your logic and number rangling are extremely flawed.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

0.005% of the population has GID, not that percent of trans people

That's a very different thing lol.

To be clear, those seeking diagnosis and those who have the condition are likely two different things. Prevalence of diagnosis, especially with mental disorders, do not reliably reflect prevalence in the population.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

0.005% of people who identify as trans who are diagnosed with GID

If that statistic is correct, you are misrepresenting what it means.

---

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

tamagucci posted...

What are you talking about? I didn't say "be comfortable in your own skin" I said I wish we could teach that. Wanting everyone to be happy with themselves is not the same as telling everyone to be happy with what they have.

Let's just clarify this, because it's worth fleshing out, given the topic.

When you say, you wish we could teach people to be comfortable in their own skin, it's because you don't think that SRS is the right direction, because you believe that these people aren't suffering from a condition where they really are their experienced gender, but rather some other type of psychiatric disorder?

---

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

This topic is evidence for while government run social programs are necessary.

---

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

viewmaster_pi posted...

i got modded for talking ill of the poster from cyberpunk, lol

certain mods look for shit to get you with

You are certainly revealing all the context.

---

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

viewmaster_pi posted...

There's no way to talk about it unless you just clap and say yay trans people and leave it at that. It's the most aggressively protected subject on the site, so your only option is to ignore threads about it. Anything and everything else is "anti trans" as far as the mods are concerned.

Naw, just blatantly anti-trans stuff.

Even Admiral knows how to trash trans people without crossing that line lol

---

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

Number090684 posted...

There should be a law that prohibits it until the individual is 21. Way too life changing of a decision to be done without enough insight and experience.

Did you become aware of your gender when you turned 21?

---

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

Ryuko_Chan posted...

dude I dont care if people take hrt lol

And what does that have to do with any of our exchanges?

---

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

Ryuko_Chan posted...

?
What does that have to do with my post

Presumably because the whole "transgenderism is fake because of radical constructivism of gender" is a bunch of bollocks.

---

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

COVxy posted...

There's decades of research showing sexually dimorphic brain structure and function, but ok.

Also, just so we're clear here, before either 'side' gets too giddy, saying that gender exists doesn't imply that current gender roles represent natural biases in behavior.

---

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

Who would have guessed TC is coincidentally posting about Islam!?

---

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

Ryuko_Chan posted...

Gender

There's decades of research showing sexually dimorphic brain structure and function, but ok.

---

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

untrustful posted...

I sometimes wonder if this is a politically oriented thing or a genuine attempt.
If it's genuine, great.
If it isn't, then they need to stop pretending.

It's political:
https://medium.com/@charlie.evans/a-journey-from-trans-to-t-rf-25bf61455048


---

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

[Citation needed]

---

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

Argumentation is never purely objective, even if you have numbers attached.

The only people I see saying things like "you can't be offended by statistics" are people who are misrepresenting the most likely truth by biased selection of information.

---

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

Let's not pretend this topic was made in good faith.

---

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

scar the 1 posted...

A graduate degree, is that master's degree? And PhD is post grad?

A graduate degree usually refers to any degree after bachelor's in the US.

---

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

LadyVyxx posted...

If going against trump and fighting for impeachment is the correct thing to do and bring justice, shouldn't the current Republican government get every right to dig into the crimes allegedly committed by Biden and his son?

If there were evidence of any wrongdoing and the investigations/requests followed proper procedures, sure.

Neither of those things are true, however.

---

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

LadyVyxx posted...

I dont think the Democrats should be going after this impeachment. I'm canadian and from an outsider perspective this whole thing will drag on well into the midway point of next year. Democrats need to be coming up with a gameplan for the election first instead of throwing so much energy at this. It could lose steam then you're a few months away from the election and if you couldn't Impeach him in the end that will just make you look worse?

Then theres my country where we have a federal election in less than 3 weeks and the current prime Minister is getting leaks almost daily and it's an embarrassment

Not going for impeachment because the politics could be unfavorable is corruption. Even if you are "the good guys".

---

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

As a black coffee drinking curmudgeon, you're just not a happy person if you rail against fun seasonals.

---

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

Cool beans.

I do think that it's interesting, sociologically. In psychology, there's a lot of animosity towards neuroimaging people because the psych people feel they are being pressured to use these expensive, often irrelevant, methods.

---

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

scar the 1 posted...

It also advertises your work to the wrong scientists, so it's not very practical

Yeah, exactly.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



What is 'that'?

---

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

Godnorgosh posted...

Epistemologists: I don't know why neuroscientists reference neurons when they don't know anything.

The ultimate troll specialization.

It's not about knowing something, it's about studying something. If you don't work with brains, there's no reason to frame your work with the word brain. Like it's literally gotten you nothing, except maybe to those who fetishize brain stuff, like people who think it's not real science unless it has it.

---

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

Vol2tex posted...

What have been some recent revelations in our understanding?

Science tends to be more incremental than that. But a recent paper that I've read that will likely have the largest impact on the field:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/729640v2

Pretty much the way that theory has dealt with dopamine reward prediction error (for learning) has been to treat it as a global scalar value. This paper shows demonstrates a physiological mechanism for dopamine to modify specific circuitry in the striatum, which we know recieves topographically organized input from the cortex.

Simply: we know that specific functions use distinct cortical and subcortical resources, but until now it wasn't clear how learning signals from dopamine modified specific function.

---

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

I feel like most people would be amazed at how much we actually know.

I thought the same thing when I started undergrad.

Don't get me wrong, we have a long way before understanding. But it's not a big black box that the media will convince you it is.

---

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

Even if this were a real topic, nobody would know because you only play a gimmick on here.

---

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

I suppose, or at least this is a weird place for me to rant about it.

---

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

Pogo_Marimo posted...

It's almost like every field has different standards for their technical language.

It's really not the same thing as jargon.

Otherwise you would be fine with them saying "liver processes" when discussing cognitive tasks. Because it's just field related jargon, they don't actually mean the liver.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

If an atomic scientists took issue with how lazily you as a neuroscientist look at transfer of electrons when talking about neuron excitability and action potential, you'd probably think they were being a bit nitpicky as well.

Naw, because I simply don't measure or claim to measure anything at the level of the atom lol.

Now if they had issues with the equations used to simplify electrical dynamics in neural systems, that's something to seriously consider. Physicists usually want to go in the opposite direction though, push to simplify while biologists fight for complexity. But again, that's not the same analogical situation.

---

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

s0nicfan posted...

So is the issue that they're conflating "brain" with "mind"? Even if they're not looking at neural models, everything the "mind" does is driven by the "brain" so its not like they're disconnected. It's more like micro and macro economics where the models differ but they're part of the same process.

I mean, by the same notion, as a neuroscientist, I study the way atoms move.

---

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