nrev

It’s interesting to see this as #1 just now. It’s a little tangential, I’ve actually been doing a lot of researching on the recent changes to Search and fallout that users have reported + some further research into my own anecdotal change in experience of Search results for the better part of the day; plus it’s something I’ve been researching on and off since the beginning of 2020 when I noticed a significant change in the quality of search results I was getting (I.e. trying to search for web pages, published resources that I know are on the web and that I’ve located with Search, prior, and unfortunately, having a harder time with that. Plus there’s some other UI/UX changes in that time frame, too). That said, I have essentially come to the conclusion that I need to pivot away from Search and find/use one of the other search engines or risk further diminishing return within a number of research tasks. :(

:’( need to lengthen urls but can’t bc on mobile :’’(

Well, as for non-‘vanity journals’, I would say the anonymous peer review process. Similarly, the publishing process after the initial anon peer review process can be generative + a healthy back and forth revision process. Plus it has the potential to take you out of sub-sub discipline echo chambers w/r/t some aspects of methodologies and other approaches to even writing/explication. Largely, though, I would say from both sides, (I.e. reader and scholar), the journal and all that comes with it (I.e. peer review process, the academic press and their branding, in some disciplines the main editors can also lend something to this) lend a greater degree of credibility and confidence in the expertise of the scholar(s). I mean this in a sort of take it for what it is, the positive and the unseemly all at once, sort of way.

I initially read this headline as an Onion-article style joke. That said, I don’t disagree with some of the ideas set forth here. I mean, I think this same sort of thing is the reason I regularly find myself reading journal articles and thinking that the title is so misleading/essentially just scholarly clickbait titles. From my perspective, however, I would be really interested to see a journal do something like this but instead with ambivalence about the use of particular stat models. (i.e. I definitely feel that there is still a religiosity in how some reviewers/journals/even disciplines have singular loyalty to p-values, but this may merely be my own perception or anecdotal experience).

Haha. I mean, you’re obviously not wrong. No less, having written a few articles for publication, it is extremely helpful to have this kind of verification and correction to even the smallest details, and I imagine that is true for article/review subjects too. I’ve read enough (published) restaurant and entertainment reviews with glaringly incorrect information to see the utility for this particular situation. But, generally, this kind of fact checking is extremely time-consuming, and it’s a lot faster to have people who do mostly this kind of thing. Plus, if you have a third party do it, it does at least seem like there would be ethical benefits and also stuff like reduced animosity for people like journalists between writers and subjects when there is an unintentional mismatch (or specifically journalists and sources). That said, I can imagine a wealth of situations in which mandatory fact-checkers seems like and inane and all-around frustrating exercise.

Had to level the playing field post Cambridge Analytica and the Netflix documentary about it, ha.

Tldr; the documentary basically concludes very blatantly C.A. (and Facebook) manipulated elections worldwide. though I won’t be touching that/stating my own take on it. (That said, I would be a little less facetious about this, if it was someone else than Thiel. But maybe I’m wrong in not seeing him as primarily an agent of Facebook. It’s just not necessarily what he represents to me as a public figure.)

There’s so much energy waste in electric cars from the greater number of times energy must be transferred specifically where it’s changing form. I don’t really see how this can be minimized or changed enough to make and electric car world (or even hybrid electric) scalable in a way that isn’t problematically energy-inefficient. So, I’m at least a little tired of the idea that electric cars are such a groundbreaking solution.

I have nothing against them/people who use them but I’m not convinced that it’s the solution to the looming crisis/possibly explosive break up in our love affair with crude oil. Plus, I’m a little afraid that here in the US we’re about a minute away from destroying Appalachia even moreso—I.e. due to particularly destructive coal mining practices and mountain topping, etc. So I’m apprehensive about increased strain on the power grid. (And I’m not keen on nuclear power either). But I welcome some kind of paradigm shift/future work that reveals I am wrong in this regard. It would be awesome if someone re-engineered and improved some aspects of these things rendering them more effective and less destructive.

(Edited at 2:24EST for typos)

I personally think this is a great sort of walk-through of the pitfalls of the strictly DSM-based approach. I don’t necessarily see it as something that particularly reflects this guy. If he wanted to create a new diagnostic approach to include people who are, in a sense, indistinguishable from the patient population of strictly DSM-V bipolar that would be its own study. In addition to the above, and a host of other matters, this article does demonstrate something about how diagnosis and diagnostic approaches greatly influence how we understand, classify, and teach psychiatry, psychology, medicine, and other clinical fields. Plus, it presents some things about practitioners understanding of patients and clinical priorities in patient visits can be so structured by these approaches, research based on them, even conventional clinical wisdom structured by them, and so on. They cause a ripple effect, and one that influences clinical and academic practice in a sufficiently complex and opaque way. So, even clinical providers, academics who try to radically depart from these approaches are still quite effected by it.

That said, the point I really want to reach is that it’s my opinion—and there is a body of academic work within and about many clinical fields on this matter— that the longevity of these diagnostic approaches and their bases, the categorization of disorders, how clinical fields themself are taught, how priorities are set in the clinic is owed and hugely influenced by the necessity (and the hegemony) of US insurance coding, especially as it relates to prescription drugs. I’m not insisting that prescriptions, or necessarily any of this is inherently negative in it’s effects, just that insurance coding as it is, health insurance in the US as it is, has (sometimes quite extreme) far reaching influence over essentially every aspect of clinical practice, research practices. At least that’s my opinion/conclusion/interest in this article.

I don’t use Twitter much, but I have noticed the reverse is true on Facebook.