I’m in a PhD program now at a different university. I definitely don’t get a team of masters students to run all my experiments for me.
That sure would have been nice. But also I feel like, I should be doing the work. Nothing wrong with a little help from a volunteer assistant but that’s different than being assigned 4 masters students to run all of your experiments.
My masters was in the UK. (I’m American). I don’t know if that’s a normal set up over there or was unusual for UK too.
For my masters thesis project I was told on day one with all the other students that we would not get to publish a paper on the research and that the research supported PhD students and professors research. And that we would , and I quote, “need to get over it”.
However, I noticed multiple times that PhD publications had 3 supervisors listed. When only one was the actual one student’s supervisor. The others weren’t even in the same area at all.
They were all 3 on every PhD paper published from that department. Always.
Yet the masters students who did all the experiments were not allowed to be included on the publications.
It was a weird setup because the masters students ran the PhD students experiments.
We did all the grunt work !
I personally ran over 40 participants that did two sessions one week apart. And probably another 20-30 that never showed up for their 2nd session. (1 hr sessions).
It’s like. Whatever. If they don’t want to put our many names on the paper they could at least mention us in the acknowledgement. And it seemed unfair that we, who did the work were forbidden from being in the papers, but 2 other professors who had nothing to do with the projects were always added.
Idk. I thought it was sketchy AF. But I hear this sort of thing is common.
The claws and body plates seem like important features. I agree that the weird fish thing doesn’t really look like it’s based off this animal.
Surprised there isn’t a pokemon based on this. But then again, fairy types have always been neglected in the franchise.
Long term suppression has been researched and found to be safe. I personally haven’t had a period in 5 years. Best decision I ever made.
Many women are misinformed about this topic.
You do not grow a uterus lining while taking these types of contraceptions. You don’t need a period to be healthy. Infact periods often result in depleted iron and other body nutrients.
The only reason to allow a menstrual cycle is to prepare for conception. If you aren’t trying to get pregnant there is no reason to have a normal cycle. Stopping it is fine.
So many women going through the monthly discomfort and fatigue for no reason.
It can be hard to find the right hormone pills that stop periods without side effects. But I would encourage you all to try. I had given up on that until I tried a newer one that only caused about 1 or 2 months of light side effects . Then nothing.
No more anemia. No more feeling like shit 4 -5 days a month.
I’m going to make a bet that most female astronauts are going to take hormones to stop menstruation. Which will also stop ovulation.
I mean there are other reasons why this suggested is invalid . See other comments.
But I’m also pointing out this one.
Idk how accurate this will be. Fps isn’t stable in games.
It fluctuates pretty dramatically.
He keeps finding food stashes. Finds a food pantry in a bunker (start of season 2). Then a pallet of food dropped by helicopter (mid or late season 2). Then they made it a reoccurring drop delivery even though there hadn’t been reoccurring food drops the whole first season. No one found any of the drops nor saw a helicopter even though it was right by the camp/hatch. But it was apparently happening the whole time.
It still was never clear who was having the food drops made but maybe dharma initiative. Since they knew Desmond was living in the bunker and the food was supposedly for him.
Also it’s a pretty good show. The last season was confusing and misunderstood.
But the rest is solid. Good acting. Interesting characters. Honestly worth watching.
Their leaders are all in the Epstein files and Israel has a copy
Also ain’t none of them conspiring together to hide the truth.
Most scientists are incredibly competitive. And often try to 1-up each other with research to prove the other scientist is wrong. Or at least partially wrong.
That’s what they live for.
So smoking and vaping. Kinda gross in my opinion (but to each their own). But you know what I dislike about them both the most. ?
They have shown me just how much I breathe in other people’s breath and that’s just horrifying.
And I don’t like being reminded visually.
Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
Some argue that even the research that’s not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
That’s how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
It’s not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don’t actually produce or make anything.
I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone’s scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And in theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I’ll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
But. People have read some studies on this. And think “I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head”.
And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
It’s insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don’t understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
It’s things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
Hormone therapy has long term consequences like permanent sterility.
I don’t think a 15 year old can understand what that risk is. I think an 18 still has limited abilities but even at that age, they have much more capability to understand these risks.
We need better tools to help identify and support kids at these times.
They are children. They have limits in their understanding of the world and long term effects and consequences of actions.
Adults should be there to help them, children do need guidance.
If adults didn’t decide things for kids, they would eat junk food for every meal, never bathe, play on their tablets 24/7 and any number of other bad behaviors.
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.
Basically it’s that the general public doesn’t understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.
It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.
That and companies don’t want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it’s because people don’t understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn’t support.
There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.
Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.
But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).
Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it’s to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.
It’s trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.
Social research is confusing to people who don’t do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.
But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.
They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren’t doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn’t include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it’s not valid.
It’s basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.
The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.
Also, it’s more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.
Then the study was about their parents.
See. That’s the point. The way that the data is collected is part of the study.
We don’t claim that any data collection method is the one true prefer way to collect. Instead we collect data from multiple sources.
Often times the sources are chosen for the availability.
For instance. Online surveys are much easier to send out than finding individuals in real life if the thing you are researching is stigmatized or there is no register of these people.
Survey polls have many validity concerns. These are well known in psych research. No one takes them at face value.
The limitations and possible influence of survey data is always discussed in the paper.
Researchers do not ignore this fact.
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That’s the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don’t seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that’s not a fair study, it’s only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That’s what it says in the paper. It’s on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers.
The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
There is no “questioning” . The research is only intended to uncover mechanisms.
The research does not investigate the validity of being trans. None of their line of research does that.
If you see it that way, maybe actually read it instead of believing what other people say about it.
Evidence gathered from scientific research studies of reports from individuals.
As for your other questions. These are addressed in the paper.
This paper is from 2007, which means its 20 years old and means a lot of additional research has since been done. Some times terminology changes in science and I should add that a lot of researchers coin their own terms for things. so that can make it tricky when reviewing literature. but in studies, the terms are always defined. so those definitions will be in this paper.
https://share.google/G3ZWsS7Y3TPh9p9k9
So I also would suggest looking at this link which shows papers that have cited this 2007 paper to see what other researchers have said about the topic and what bailey or his grad students have added to it.
There are 55 of these. some more relevant than others to the topic than others.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15898950914960057097&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0%2C14&hl=en
I had to switch supervisors during my PhD. It’s a very stressful ordeal. Just know, I know what it’s like and I sympathize.
It’s sad to see so many problematic people in academia.
I was genuinely surprised when I realized how it is.
Just goes to show high education or intellect can’t fix a shitty petty insecure personality.
I always figured people went into academia because they wanted to find answers to the questions. And teach young minds to seek out answers too. That it would be this positive encouragement environment.
Which is what I found while attending community college for my associates and bachelor’s at state. Though I did do a lot of those degrees online and night classes.
So I must have been shielded from the toxic aspects.