Kaz

📌

Logical brain: Rejections probably happen the most to those who publish the most. It’s a normal part of the process and not something to be afraid of.

Demon brain: trying to publish leads to rejection, the more you try to do it, the more rejections you will get. Be very afraid of publishing.

Thank you for sharing this part of the process, I sometimes forget it happens to other people, too.

Double 🤡: If faculty won’t train students, but will expect their dissertation project to be designed, planned, and executed independently, they probably shouldn’t recruit students without research experience, either…

We love a happy-ish ending!

At least in social situations. Professional situations, I’d do a gentler version more akin to your friend’s strategy, like “wait, what did you just say?” With a “confused” tone. Either way, no-selling is more cringe-inducing, imo.

I try to address it pretty directly, like “Do you think Asian people are why you got sick? Do you understand how viruses work?” with pity/disgust/dismissive tone. These types are more afraid of looking stupid than being called racist, which bolsters a transgressive truth teller self-concept.

I’m “on vacation” so I may be telling you what you already know, but I believe this systematic review was specifically funded to inform the Cass Review: adc.bmj.com/content/earl... . It certainly words some things differently…

I’m not as sure. To the people driven by ideologies of hate, they would hate for any reason and peel away material support for “the mentally ill”, anyway. At least with public awareness, professional organizations are aware of the harm caused by further marginalizing groups. It’s less worse, imo.

Yeah, as a clinical researcher, I tend to focus on concern trolling about mental health outcomes data because those are the data I know, but I also know that it’s a red herring for legal infringements on our rights and liberties.

I’m honestly surprised I didn’t make the connection myself until just now, considering this is a stance I often take as a trans researcher and my brother’s cancer has such a big impact on my family.

My brother had a rare & aggressive cancer. No studies of it came anywhere near approaching the kind of statistical power you would like to see for normal clinical best practices guidelines. The group that specializes in it made one anyway and that’s what his onc team used with him. He’s in remission

For the theory that he presents I would want to see data that demonstrates “girls” in general are more susceptible to social contagion, that social contagion works on clinically evaluated diagnoses, and then specifically for this. His is not a serious scientific take.

I appreciate the idea that I was blindly going along with suggestions, I do that sometimes! But my research since looking into it doesn’t refute consistent masking for COVID risk reduction in any way yet. Was there any other research you found?

Additionally, it isn’t possible to do a double-blind study on this. Participants in the mask condition cannot be blinded to their mask-wearing. It can only be single-blinded, which has been done and concluded masks reduce risk.

The systematic reviews on the effectiveness of MASKING ITSELF to reduce COVID risk conclude that it is effective, and better masks with proper use are more effective, even if some studies were inconclusive due it inconsistent mask usage of participants.

I saw the Cochrane review referenced, it wouldn’t support nor refute that conclusion, because it didn’t examine the effectiveness of MASKING, it examined the effectiveness of public health interventions to PROMOTE MASKING. It doesn’t speak to the effectiveness of masking at all.

Most of the studies I read that had inconclusive findings did so because participants were inconsistent in their mask wearing, implying consistent mask use is what works. What is the existing science you’re referring to so I can understand what your argument is?

This is odd for me to read, not having been part of this discussion before. My literature review shows strong scientific support for the use of masks in the reduction of COVID risk, from reliable journals. There’s nuance: type of mask, size of reduction, utility of mandates; but not the main finding

Of course I’m also just arguing this from a position where I pretend his argument is in good faith, and… it’s very clearly not. I don’t know if this tactic is any better than the reply in this thread that just said “Jesse Shithead” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes! People love cherry picking a single study for minor flaws, which would be good critical thinking skills, but science is done in aggregate. In applied clinical science we have to make the best decisions with the data we do HAVE, and we have SO MUCH data supporting affirming care!

Every researcher’s lit review is going to reveal studies that were fantastic but didn’t include THEIR population of interest. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad study or poor evidence for its conclusions, it just means that it doesn’t answer your personal research question.

I think you might be focusing on an irrelevant part of this metaphor. The metaphor illustrates the general concept of a social identity that can sometimes be biologically based and other times based on social role. Parenting roles are about caregiving, but gender roles aren’t inherently about care.

How do I only like half a post? Carrots are SO GOOD AND carrot cake is SO GOOD!

WWWWWWHHHHYYY did you not talk to me about knitting when I WAS AT YOUR HOME!!!!!! I have 2 color brioche experience!!!!!!!!

I don’t read this post as “never criticize Dems” so much as “it is extremely dangerous to say both parties are the same.” It can be true that fascism and neoliberalism ARE materially different AND that Dems need to be more anti-apartheid and anti-war than they are.

I still hold this grudge. I find it helpful in trying to mentalize billionaires. Sure, I had kitchen trash bags full of Halloween candy, but it was MY candy!