Saturday 17 February 2024

Post No. 2,713 - Some interesting reading/viewing [Note: Content Warning - links to distressing reports on some topics. Reader discretion is advised]

Note: CONTENT WARNING - some of this content is about upsetting, disturbing or triggering events & attitudes. Seek competent help - including professional - if you need it. READER CAUTION IS RECOMMENDED! For anyone distressed by anything in this post, or for any other reason considering seeking support, resources are available in Australia here, here, and here. In other nations, you will have to do an Internet search using terms such as mental health support - <your nation>(which, for instance, may lead to this, this, and this, in the USA, or this, this, and this, in France [biased towards English-language - my apologies]), or perhaps try https://www.befrienders.org/

Here are some llinks that might of interest or value:

  • “The scandal that shook psychology to its core”   https://youtu.be/QGWeVbYduOI?si=K4a-i7AyARoVn0hq  
    This was triggered by (alleged) problems with replication of a paper showing evidence of precognition, but some of the biases shown by reviewers in relation to that paper was staggering - they amounted to being along the lines of “we know they earth isn’t round because we can see it is flat, so anything suggesting otherwise is absurd”. A far better approach is written about in
    Dean I Radin
    s “The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena” [Harper One (2010), first pub. Harper Collins (2009), ISBN 978 0062029096, Amazon]    Other links that may be of use or interest on that include   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daryl_Bem&oldid=1195120420#%22Feeling_the_Future%22_controversy     https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/feeling-future-precognition-experiments     https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/15/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications (which highlights that supposed attempts to REPLICATE actually USED DIFFERENT PROCEDURES!!!)    
    There is another aspect here that is known to us who actually understand and work in the area: the FACT that scepticism can and does block psychism  
    Going back to this video, it includes a good look at the issue of replicability of results - and the need to publish null results (which I support, based on my near half a century of experience in engineering), which is difficult because of positive result bias in publication decisions, and a rethinking of the whole concept of replicability / proof
      See also   “Questioning Psychology's Findings: A Real Crisis”   https://youtu.be/FXIFtWH0GQM?si=lEG1d15kkL25oJqL  This raises some good points which require consideration (some similar to what we, in bacterial testing in the water industry, referred to as MPN - Most Probable Number)   and, more generally,   “China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct”   https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00397-x   “Universities must declare all their retractions and launch investigations into misconduct cases; a Nature analysis reveals that since 2021 there have been more than 17,000 retractions with Chinese co-authors”  
  • also from YouTube:

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and theres also Instagram.

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).
 
Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typos may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/