[ SECRET POST #5551 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5551 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.
[Iron Widow, by Xiran Jay Zhao]



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.
[Venom]


__________________________________________________



04. https://i.imgur.com/M0aDyxc.png
[OP warned for NSFW image]


__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________
















06. [SPOILERS for In Sound Mind]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #794.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[feotakahari]

I don’t really trust that “brain lights up” matches to “thinking about.” The “brain lights up” studies get all kinds of bizarre results.

[meadowphoenix]

yeah, if you don't really believe in neuroimaging as a methodology, this isn't really going to prove anything to you, no. what's an example of a bizarre result?

[feotakahari]

Here’s a great one: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-brain-scans-2-13342/

“Craig Bennett, then a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wanted to test how far he could push the envelope with analysis. He slid a single Atlantic salmon into an MRI scanner, showed it pictures of emotional scenarios, and then followed typical pre-processing and statistical analysis procedures. Lo and behold, the dead fish’s brain exhibited increased activity for emotional images—implying a sensitive, if not alive, salmon. Even in a dead salmon’s brain, the MRI scanner detected enough noise that some voxels exhibited statistically significant correlations. By failing to correct for multiple comparisons, Bennett and his colleagues “discovered” illusory brain activity.”

[meadowphoenix]

Yeah, I don't know if you know this, but this is all algorithmic data. You have to deal with a) coding, b) decision-making related to the algorithm c) the instruments you're using and their sensitivity to all stimuli and d) the external pressures of funding v. results. This isn't unique to brain scans and is pretty much a thing in most, if not all, data analysis. That's what the methods sections is for. hth.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for speaking to Feo like the idiot they are oml

[feotakahari]

What did I do to you? Not a rhetorical question. I’d like to know.

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

You didn't do anything to anyone as far as I know, but you are rather willfully obtuse and have the tendency to derail discussions with non-sequiturs.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

original anon here, yeah that about covers it. just willfully obtuse all over the place and derailing all the time with inane commentary that just... ugh.

Re: NAYRT

[feotakahari]

People always assume my obtuseness is willful, and I never get why. Is it that hard to believe I’m just dumb? Call me out when I’m missing the point, and I’ll do my best to listen.

Re: NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

You’re not dumb, and you’re not willfully obtuse. They’re just being rude af. You may get things wrong sometimes, like literally everyone else, and it’s ridiculous for them to act like you’re doing it on purpose for some reason. And I don’t even think you are wrong in this thread, because this all feels like opinion?

[feotakahari]

There’s an analogy I’d like to draw. When men show a physiological arousal response, but say they aren’t aroused, researchers say the arousal response means something else. When women show a physiological arousal response, but say they aren’t aroused, researchers say they’re unaware of their own arousal. The response is real, but the researchers choose what they want the response to mean.

By the same token, there isn’t a specific part of the brain labeled “tools go here.” If it responds to tools, and it responds to half-naked women, there are probably a whole bunch of other things it responds to. You could say people view half-naked women as equivalent to any of those things, and you may or may not be right. The choice is dependent on what results you want to be true.

[(Anonymous)]

I have nothing to add to this convo, but for the record, I think you both are making some valid points here. *shrug*

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed.

[meadowphoenix]

What is that analogy supposed to show except that science (literally all science) is done by human beings with agendas? Again that's not limited to brain scans, and that's not limited to neuroscience and it's not limited to anything for which data has to be interpretable. Which is everything. That's what reports are supposed to gauge.

You could say people view half-naked women as equivalent to any of those things, and you may or may not be right.
If half-naked women are equivalent to any of those things not human-shaped things, but not men or non-half naked women that's good information. Like...you understand that right?

No offense but this seems like you don't like science way more than you don't see the reliability of neuroimaging. All the things you've used to show reliability are wildly applicable about the whole subject.

[feotakahari]

"If half-naked women are equivalent to any of those things not human-shaped things, but not men or non-half naked women that's good information. Like...you understand that right?"

No, I didn't know that the study in question looked at men or fully clothed women. I still don't know what study it is.

Also, I feel weirdly horrified that you somehow got "you don't like science" from anything I said. I keep trying to write an explanation of my thoughts, and I keep running up against the fact that you somehow came up with "you don't like science." If you could get THAT out of what I said, then I have no idea how to progress without further misunderstandings.

[meadowphoenix]

No, I didn't know that the study in question looked at men or fully clothed women. I still don't know what study it is.
You know, trying to say something about the efficacy of neuroimaging that implicates literally all data analysis when you haven't looked at or asked for the study and don't know what it's saying does not scream "likes science" to me. My other comments in this thread have several studies.

Also, I feel weirdly horrified that you somehow got "you don't like science" from anything I said.
I think I've been clear how I got there. But to wit, I don't think people who profess skepticism of scientific techniques in a way that implicates all scientific techniques like science. "You have to make choices and use machines therefore the conclusions are unreliable" is a concern with all of science, including chemistry and physics. And people who think they're saying something significant as if efficacy isn't constantly re-adjusted and re-looked and challenged within the field don't really like the idea of science as it exists.

[(Anonymous)]

Meadowphoenix does this kind of thing. Extrapolating wild shit from nowhere when they don’t have any real counter argument, and running with it. Then condescending you when you respond that that’s obviously not what you meant. Sometimes they’ll even go the full mile and try to gaslight. They can be extremely unpleasant and ridiculous at the drop of a hat. Don’t worry, it’s perfectly clear that you neither said or meant you don’t like science to everyone else.