#data validity and reliability

[icedq-toranainc]

Data Testing Automation Tool - iceDQ

Discover the best data testing automation tools for assuring data validity and reliability. Uplift your testing strategy with cutting-edge data validation tools. Gain a deeper understanding of the data testing concept and achieve data quality with our innovative solutions. Read more here - https://bit.ly/4aYWcat

[marketxcel]

5 Methods of Data Collection for Quantitative Research

Discover five powerful techniques for gathering quantitative data in research, essential for uncovering trends, patterns, and correlations. Explore proven methodologies that empower researchers to collect and analyze data effectively.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Understanding a Scientific Article

Abstract

A brief description of the key points you will find in the paper. This can include:

Objectives: What questions the researchers hope to answer.

Methods: What type of study the researchers used to conduct the study.

Results: What the researchers discovered.

Discussion/conclusion: What the results mean and/or the author’s interpretation of the results.

Look at the date of the study.

Was it conducted in the past year? 5 years? 15 years? As new information is learned, scientific standards and techniques change, and practices evolve.

New research may support results from older studies as well as lead to new methods to diagnose and treat conditions and diseases.

New research can, at times, also contradict other research, which may require additional research to explore and resolve these differences.

Research can separate the good results from the bad results. In this way, the scientific method is self-correcting, which is reassuring.

Looking at the date can provide insight into how the study fits into the larger evidence base on a particular topic.

Methods

Detailed information on the type of research or approach used, the study’s design, the participants, the measurements or outcomes recorded, and steps taken to avoid bias.

Types of Research

Basic research: Scientists ask questions about theories or concepts, and test hypotheses to improve scientific knowledge. It’s the first step in any research.

Translational research: Researchers build on the observations and results of basic research to develop and test new ways to prevent, detect, or treat conditions and diseases.

Clinical trials: Well-planned clinical trials are done with people and may vary in size and type. Clinical trials give the clearest information about whether a treatment or a lifestyle change is effective and safe in humans. However, because they are complicated, lengthy, involve many research participants and can be very expensive, they are usually done only after smaller preliminary studies have been completed.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: When researchers review each other’s research to check for quality and look for converging evidence among studies, they may write systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These look at different studies on the same topic. When many studies come to the same conclusion, it helps us know that the results are reliable and valid.

While all research studies are important and contribute to our knowledge base, clinical trials are the types of studies you probably hear about most often in the news. They can have the most immediate impact on improving health and treating disease.

Results

What the study showed.

The data, summaries, and analyses of the study are presented in this section. Tables, graphs, and charts that show the results are often included.

To better understand the results, you can ask these questions:

How do these results compare with previous studies?

A single study rarely provides a final, definitive answer.

Repeating a study using the same methods with different volunteers and investigators helps us know that the results are reliable and valid.

What do “statistically significant” and “clinically significant” mean?

Statistically significant means the differences observed between the groups are real and not likely due to chance.

Clinically significant is a measure of the size of the effects observed in the study, which shows the impact of the treatment.

A study can find statistically significant differences between two treatment groups, but the differences may be so small that they are not clinically significant in terms of usefulness for patients.

Are there potential conflicts of interest?

Did the study sponsor or the investigators have any financial or reputational "stake" in the outcome?

Most medical journal articles include information about relevant financial relationships.

Discussion

What the results mean.

This is where you can often find out how the study relates to your own health.

This section includes the authors’ explanation of, and own opinions about, what the results mean.

Since the conclusions are the authors’ own, others may or may not completely agree with their explanation of the results.

References

Previously published articles the authors used to review what related research was done before, to help design the study and interpret its results.

Source ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[technofeudalism]

i made a long post about how traditional media coalescing around Trump is scarier than social media for me and i included some news/media sources i recommend at the bottom. here they are (plus some additions) in a shorter post so that it is easier to share.

the objective is to build a network of local, national and global sources that you can count on. preferably completely independent and free from editorial or corporate oversight.

note: all media is flawed, including the ones below. never rely on one source. do not immediately accept something as the truth from any single source. everyone is capable of accidentally getting a detail wrong, or even deliberately misleading. the fact is that even reading something as inflammatory as Fox News can give you information you wouldn't be able to get anywhere else, the key is not to take any of it at face value.

Dropsite News - ran by Ryan Grim, Jeremy Scahill

The Intercept - sadly running out of money, alleged CIA ties

Democracy Now! - more center-left, better domestically

Jacobin - wide variety, sometimes shitty takes, Alex Press is great

The Grayzone - this one is controversial (mainly just to liberals) and they make no qualms about being committed to reporting from an anti-imperialist view of the world

Black Agenda Report - perspective from Black leftists. founded by Glen Ford (RIP), a Black Panther and accomplished investigative journalist

Hasan Piker - hate him, love him, neutral, doesn't matter. he's the largest independent political commentator on the left (by far), covering news and misinformation 9 hours a day. you can think he has shit takes, but he's still a reliable source and has been insanely accurate with his opinions

The Majority Report - been around forever, Sam Seder & Emma Vigeland are amazing, once home to the incredible Michael Jamal Brooks (RIP)

International Viewpoint - monthly English-language magazine of the Fourth International

Left Voice - socialist news site and magazine

It's Going Down - news, opinion, podcasts and reporting from an anarchist viewpoint

Sludge - investigative journalism on lobbying and money in politics

Socialist Alternative - democratic socialist news organization.

Socialist Project - Toronto-based organisation that supports the rebuilding of the socialist Left in Canada

The Progressive - leftist magazine operating since 1909

Truthdig - independent source for original reporting from a progressive viewpoint

Workers World - marxist news organization run by Workers World Party

Breakthrough News - untold stories of resistance from poor and working-class communities

Labor Notes - media and organizing project amplifying union activism

Ben Norton @ Global Political Economy

Erin Reed

Caitlin Johnstone (AUS)

do not rely on "media bias" sources like Ground News. they are part of the problem with making false equivalencies between left and right. this insightful blog post published a few days ago proves my point: "The data collected here shows that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones, and are less politically polarized. The process for selecting, grouping, and summarizing these stories does not seem to take these differences into account, and there is little transparency into how that process works. This leads the platform to publish dodgy stories from the right, with the appearance that they are just as valid as high-fact reporting from the left or the center."

[academicfever]

This is a good starting point but its not exhaustive by any means...

#Research 101: Part 1

##    How to find a good research topic?

It’s best to familiarize yourself with a discipline or topic as broadly as possible by looking beyond academia

Tips:

Be enthusiastic, but not unrealistic. For example, you might be tempted to throw yourself into finding out to what extent an entire economy has become circular, but it may already be challenging and tricky enough to find out which building materials are being recycled in the construction sector, and in what ways.

Be open-minded but beware of cul-de-sacs. You should always find out first whether enough is known about a topic already, or you might find yourself wasting a lot of time on it.

Be creative but stay close to the assignment. This starts with the topic itself; if one learning objective of the assignment is to carry out a survey, it isn’t helpful to choose a topic for which you need to find respondents on the other side of the world. One place where you can look for inspiration is current events. 

Although professors and lecturers tend to be extremely busy, they are often enthusiastic about motivated and smart students who are interested in their research field. You do need to approach them with focused questions, though, and not just general talk such as: ‘Do you know of a good topic for me?’ In many cases, a good starting point is the scholar themselves. Do a search on them in a search engine, take a look at their university web page, read recent publications,

In most university towns, you’ll come across organizations that hold regular lectures, debates, and thematic evenings, often in partnership with or organized by university lecturers and professors. If you’re interested in transdisciplinary research where academic knowledge and practical knowledge come together, this is certainly a useful place to start your search.

If you want to do interdisciplinary research, it is essential to understand and work with concepts and theories from different research fields, so that you are able to draw links between them (see Menken and Keestra (2016) on why theory is important for this). With an eye to your ‘interdisciplinary’ academic training, it is therefore a good idea to start your first steps in research with concepts and theories.

##How to do Lit Review:

Although texts in different academic disciplines can differ significantly in terms of structure, form, and length, almost all academic articles (research articles and literature reports) share a number of characteristics:

They are published in scholarly journals with expert editorial boards

These journals are peer-reviewed

These articles are written by authors who have no direct commercial or political interest in the topic on which they are writing

There are also non-academic research reports such as UN reports, data from statistics institutes, and government reports. Although these are not, strictly speaking, peer-reviewed, the reliability of these sources means that their contents can be assumed to be valid

You can usually include grey literature in your research bibliography, but if you’re not sure, you can ask your lecturer or supervisor whether the source you’ve found meets the requirements.

Google and Wikipedia are unreliable: the former due to its commercial interests, the latter because anyone, in principle, can adjust the information and few checks are made on the content.

disciplinary and interdisciplinary search machines with extensive search functions for specialized databases, such as the Web of Science, Pubmed, Science Direct, and Scopus

Search methods All of these search engines allow you to search for scholarly sources in different ways. You can search by topic, author, year of publication, and journal name. Some tips for searching for literature: 1. Use a combination of search terms that accurately describes your topic. 2. You should use mainly English search terms, given that English is the main language of communication in academia. 3. Try multiple search terms to unearth the sources you need. a. Ensure that you know a number of synonyms for your main topic b. Use the search engine’s thesaurus function (if available) to map out related concepts.

During your search, it is advisable to keep track of the keywords and search combinations you use. This will allow you to check for blind spots in your search strategy, and you can get feedback on improving the search combinations. Some search engines automatically keep a record of this.

Exploratory reading How do you make a selection from the enormous number of articles that are often available on a topic? Keep the following four questions in mind, and use them to guide your literature review: ■■ What is already known about my topic and in which discipline is the topic discussed? ■■ Which theories and concepts are used and discussed within the scope of my topic, and how are they defined? ■■ How is my topic researched and what different research methods are there? ■■ Which questions remain unanswered and what has yet to be researched?

$$ Speed reading:

Run through the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles at the top of your list and work out which ideas (concepts) keep coming back.

Next, use the abstract to figure out what these concepts mean, and also try to see whether they are connected and whether this differs for each study.

If you are unable to work out what the concepts mean, based on the context, don’t hesitate to use dictionaries or search engines.

Make a list of the concepts that occur most frequently in these texts and try to draw links between them.

A good way to do this is to use a concept map, which sets out the links between the concepts in a visual way.

All being well, by now you will have found a list of articles and used them to identify several concepts and theories. From these, try to select the theories and concepts that you want to explore further. Selecting at this stage will help you to frame and focus your research. The next step is to discover to what extent these articles deal with these concepts and theories in similar or different ways, and how combining these concepts and theories leads to different outcomes. In order to do this, you will need to read more thoroughly and make a detailed record of what you’ve learned.

next: part 2

part 3

part 4

last part

[crazy-pages]

First step to being a rationalist.

Acknowledge it might not work.

Let me take a step back for a moment. The single most important principle of science, in my opinion, is acknowledging the possibility of failure, that something might be beyond you. People often think of science as how you discover the truth, but I think it is more accurately and importantly described by how it lets us determine what we do not know.

For most of human history, we not only did not know what the sun was made out of, the question was fundamentally beyond our grasp. There was nothing any amount of scientific principle could do that would let you know what the sun was for most of human history. To be a scientist about it, to apply the scientific method to understanding the sun, is not just being able to know nuclear physics. You have to teach yourself to know when to say 'I don't know'.

For most of human history the sun has been fundamentally beyond our capacity to understand. And yet it is one of the most enduring and common subjects of false explanations. To internalize the scientific method, truly in a way that changes your thinking relative to what it was before you learned it, you have to become someone who, if you were living in those times, would be able to say "I don't know" even when everyone around you has an answer.

So let's talk about rationalism.

Rationalism is not just the idea that we can understand human biases. It's not just the idea that we can be more thoughtful or knowledgeable people by understanding these biases. No, rationalism is specifically the idea that by learning enough about human biases and by leaning on hard enough on data, we can reliably make correct and optimal moral choices. It is the belief that by performing enough rationalist study and training, and applying enough information science to a problem, one can proceed on the assumption they have come to the correct conclusion.

And those are very different things. It is the difference between saying "by understanding wood better, we can construct better foot bridges" and "by understanding wood better, we can span the San Francisco Bay with it".

Because here's the thing, better is not the same thing as reliable. Even if we grant the assumption that learning about biases makes one less likely to fall prey to them, and that is an assumption, an 80% chance of making mistake is also less than a 90% chance of making a mistake. It's valuable, that's a good thing, but it is not sufficient to say "hey so I used this method to come to my conclusions, therefore I'm sure I didn't make a mistake".

If you want to be a rationalist, the first rational principle you need to apply is that of the scientific principle looking at the sun. You need to be able to say "There may be nothing I can do, with the resources I have access to, to be sure I am actually free of bias and mistakes in logic. This may be fully beyond me, for the entire span of my life." And not just in the sense that nobody is perfect, but in the very real sense that you cannot depend on the train of logic in your own head to lead you to a correct place.

And the reason this is important is for the same reason it's important in science. The moment that you presume something is in fact knowable in science, it just becomes a tool of accrediting whatever conclusion you come to. It stops being an actual tool of discovery and becomes a rubber stamp of validation. It becomes something which makes you feel better about the conclusion you came to, not something which actually helps you in any way.

The moment you say to yourself, "because I am a rationalist, I am confident enough in A, B, and C to take actions X, Y, and Z" you've failed to be a rationalist. (Unless you provide a double blind study of a large well-controlled population, one of which was given rationalist training and the other which wasn't, upon the end of which it was determined that the rationalist trained population did indeed perform to an improved standard meeting a high minimum on certain metrics (upon which you must limit your assumption of rationalist improvement to those specific metrics). And then this study has been in the corpus of literature long enough to be peer-reviewed and criticized and had duplicate research and further investigation and a good long while for the scientific community to dissect it. A thing which has definitely not happened yet.)

The most important thing you can learn from rationalism is not an understanding of a specific set of biases. It's not the particular ways human cognition is messed up and it's not any type of information science. It is the fact that humans are flawed.

The most important thing you can learn from rationalism is humility, not hubris.

To do otherwise is for rationalism to just become another tool of confirmation bias, something making you think you are more correct than you actually are.

The humility you have to learn from rationalism is that you must plan and behave on the assumption that no matter how rationalist you think you are, you might still be behaving in biased ways. That there might be no way to fix this. And so all you can do try to behave in ways where even if you're wrong, you're going to minimize the harm you do to others.

This is where futurist philosophies derived from rationalism, the idea that the unimaginable number of humans in the future are so much more than the ones now that it justifies worker exploitation and present harms to make the far future better, falls apart. This is where AI doomerism/utopianism, the idea that general AI is definitely the biggest threat and potential boon facing humanity so we have to put all of our resources into safe AI research at the expense of everything else, falls apart. This is where effective altruism, the idea that we can quantify the outcomes of charity thoroughly enough that it makes sense to hand over direction of all charity to a small group of experts, falls apart.

Because the answer to "what if you're wrong about these philosophies?" is that a lot of people get very hurt. We are flawed. Fundamentally so, and I don't know that anyone has ever proved a way we can get around this. The only thing I know that we can do about this, is to try to behave in ways that minimize harms while trying to make the world better, rather than trying to maximize a hail mary to find the holy grail.

To which I can already hear the rationalists saying that this might not be enough to save the world, that anything but convulsive directed effort focused on is already doomed, so we have to pick one of them.

To which I say. First off, how are you sure of that? How is this a thing that you know for certain?

But more importantly. Yeah. You're right. There's no way of knowing for sure what course of action will make the world a better place. There's no way of knowing that anything short of futurists sacrificing the workers of the present to build a brighter future will be enough.

But if you are actually a rationalist, well. That is what you have to live with. You've got to be the scientist looking up at the sun and saying, "I don't know."

And then you should go and do things to make the world better without being sure of your prognostication of the future.

[evidence-based-activism]

Ik this isnt a data based question, but what are the main theories on patriarchy’s origin? There’s the marxist feminist one where agriculture was the main instigator, but most hunter-gatherer societies are not completely feminist and gender equal either. Is it a matter of physical strength + motive + opportunity for men? I was just wondering what you thought about the literature on this topic (of course much of it is purely speculative).

Hey! Okay, so I want to start this out by acknowledging that history is not my field. I am in awe of historians because they're essentially making coherent theories out of a patchwork of surviving evidence. Add to that the language barriers (so many modern languages! exponentially more extinct languages!) and the fact that people just lie (in translations! about primary sources! in! primary! sources! I cannot fathom having to figure out whether or not a primary source is reliable or not because Ancient Guy #24232 lies – but only sometimes) and I am amazed the field is as coherent as it is.

(Yes I am aware many of these things apply to both "hard" and "soft" sciences. The difference is I know how to identify the problems in the sciences :'))

So, with that disclaimer, here is some information! (All sources at the end, this time!)

---

The theories:

I found a bunch of different theories about the patriarchy's origins, but it's unclear to me the extent to where these fall on the "vague possibilities" to "generally accepted as fact" scale. They include:

Agriculture: The theory that the invention of agriculture led to permanent human settlements, at which point hierarchies including the patriarchy emerged. Often connected to the ideas of land rights and defense of land rights (warfare) and the ideas of property rights and inheritance of property (i.e., male control over resources and/or the treatment of women as property).

Fire: A similar theory as the agriculture theory, but centered around the invention of fire. Connected to the idea that the movement of women started being restricted around the time fire/cooking was invented (i.e., that women "stayed at/close to camp" to cook while men left to hunt).

Mobility: A theory emphasizing the differences in freedom of movement (i.e., that the division of men hunting and women gathering). Connected to the invention of fire and agriculture, both of which likely restricted women's movement further than before.

Reproductive capacity: The theory that the differential amounts of investment in reproduction (i.e., men need to ejaculate sperm and women must grow the child, give birth, and nurse the child until weaned) resulted in the patriarchy. Sometimes linked to Marxist feminism, by the suggestion that men regard and treat women as a "means of (re)production". Either way, this theory emphasizes the exploitation of women as a resource.

Physical dimorphism: Linked to the reproductive capacity theory but focused more on other physical differences (e.g., men tend to have greater absolute strength, be physically larger, etc.). Focuses on the fact that men have the physical capacity to assault and control women. Often supported with comparisons to other mammals.

Choice: The theory that men (or some men or multiple groups of men) intentionally started the patriarchy to obtain individual benefits and have since (intentionally and/or passively) perpetuated it out of a desire to maintain those benefits.

Others: Some people may divide out theories in different ways. For example, some may contend that the patriarchy followed the invention of a private property/a class system, in which men controlled these resources. (I have lumped this in with agriculture.) There are likely other theories I am unaware of!

Poking holes in these theories:

All of these theories have inconsistencies and challenges that challenge their explanatory and (particularly) predictive validity. Here are some:

Agriculture: If this theory is true we would expect pre- and non-agricultural societies to be consistently (or at least mostly) egalitarian. But, (as anon indicated) this is not necessarily true. There does appear to be/have been at least a partial division of labor by sex (i.e., men hunt and women gather), although it very likely is not as strict as it's been made out to be (i.e., women sometimes did hunt). Further, the idea that land-rights emerged with agriculture ignores the possibility that early societies formed gathering/hunting "territories", as many animals do. The aspects concerning and effects of land-rights (and possibly even property-rights) could then also be applied to pre-agricultural societies. And, indeed, there is some evidence of warfare in pre-agricultural societies. An even bigger outstanding question is the recent evidence suggesting complex societies/social structures prior to agriculture (Gobekli Tepe). That is, if the theory is that agriculture led to complex social structures which led to the patriarchy, how does one account for evidence of complex social structures prior to agriculture.

Fire: A lot of the same criticisms from the agriculture section can be applied here. But in addition that, this theory neglects to consider the fact that, in at least some of these societies, the majority of calories were provided from the women's gathered food. In addition, it doesn't consider how cooking was the (potential) impetus for advancements in human intelligence and society. I'd then ask: if both of these vital components (food source and food modification for further optimization) were being provided by women, why would this social structure result in patriarchy? Another good exercise is to try and see if you could apply this same argument to the opposite outcome. In other words, if (in some other timeline/reality) society was structured around matriarchies, could this theory be used to explain that? I'd argue, yes, it could (and would arguably make even more sense than the current theory). For example, one could argue: "because women were the primary providers (i.e., provided most calories and tended to fires that allowed for further optimization of resources) in early human civilization, while men's contributions (i.e., hunting for meat) often separated them from the larger group, early human societies developed around women's relationships naturally resulting a matriarchy as these society's grew larger/more complex." The fact that this same theory could be so easily applied to the opposite outcome suggests it may be a post hoc fallacy.

Mobility: I'd apply the same criticisms here as I applied to the agriculture and fire theories. In addition to that, it seems as though this may be conflating a current observation ("patriarchal cultures limit women's movement") with a prehistoric explanation ("differences in men's and women's movement resulted in the patriarchy").

Reproductive capacity: The biggest contradiction to this argument is the fact that we don't (always) see this pattern in non-human animals with complex social structures. As much as 43% of primate (lemurs, monkeys, and apes) species exhibit either female-dominant or egalitarian social structures. The most commonly referenced example of this is the bonobo; this considered significant because humans and bonobos are as closely "related" as humans and the male-dominated chimpanzees. There's a number of other mammals (where the female always carries the young) where this is true, including: elephants, hyenas, orcas, lions, and many others. It's true that these social organizations appear to be less common than male-dominated species, but this challenges the predictive value of this theory (i.e., if reproductive differences were the origin of the patriarchy we would not expect there to be female-dominated mammals). (There is an important note here, that any attempts to categorize animal behavior by humans standards runs the risk of anthropomorphizing. That being said, it would also be biased to completely disregard this evidence.) Again we could also try the "applying this theory to the opposite outcome" approach, and again, I'd argue that the resulting theory is even more logical. Consider, for example: "in early human civilization women's natural control over reproduction afforded them disproportionate social power; as societies grew more complex this natural division of power was codified into society, with women's influence over the family unit ultimately being reflected in, first, cooperative social groups and, later, governments." (Again, this exercise demonstrates that this theory may be an example of a post hoc fallacy.)

Physical dimorphism: The criticism for this theory is almost identical to the one for reproductive capacity. In particular, for primates, sexual dimorphism "does not necessarily constrain intersexual power relationships unless it is substantial". This is notable, because modern (and probably early) humans are considered to display – relatively speaking – limited physical dimorphism. Other matriarchal species (e.g., elephants, orcas, lions) also display physical dimorphism despite having larger males.

Choice: One of the biggest holes in this theory is that patriarchies appear to have emerged independently of each other in various locations. Even if you could conceivably imagine a scenario where one group of men in one location intentionally created a patriarchy, it's difficult to imagine this happening many, separate times, without some other influencing factor. I think this theory also falls victim to the current observation ("many men actively and/or passively uphold the patriarchy") for a past explanation ("a group of men chose to create the patriarchy").

Others: There's likely some other issues/counter-arguments for these! (There's probably also counter-counter-arguments as well!)

---

Conclusion:

So, where does this leave us?

I'd argue that it's most likely that some combination of all these factors ultimately led to the patriarchy. I doubt, however, that we'll ever know exactly what factors were involved or how we got from "there" (i.e., some biological and social differences between the sexes) to "here" (i.e., with a complex social organization favoring men and oppressing women).

It's an interesting thought exercise to consider how these factors could have interacted. I'd like to provide and example, but to be explicitly clear, I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory (or even a necessarily likely one) this is purely an example of one way these factors could have, potentially, interacted:

The biological differences between women and men (i.e., reproductive capacity and physical dimorphism), resulted in a generalized, but not completely restrictive, division of labor by sex in early human societies (i.e., men tended to undertake long hunts over large areas and women tended to remain in a smaller area, gathering and cultivating plants and hunting/trapping smaller animals while tending to children). In addition to this, men's greater-on-average strength meant they were primarily responsible for defending early territories (i.e., from animals and/or other groups of male humans). These factors advantaged men who were disproportionately inclined towards aggression (i.e., increased the personal survival and mating success) of such men. However, these differences did not ultimately result in organized social oppression of women (i.e., the patriarchy) until these early civilizations started to grow in size around the advent of agriculture. Once this additional factor was added, women's previously reduced mobility became even more restricted and more formalized. Defense of territory (now agricultural land with far denser resources) and the increase in private property (as increased food production allowed for diversification of labor) also resulted in increased warfare. Again, men inclined towards aggression tended to survive longer and have more success in finding a mate, due to the expansion of conflict over land/property. In contrast, women were increasingly treated like the property of men, as something that provides a resource (e.g., babies) and requires protection from other men looking to obtain that resource. This status change was realized in laws and religions restricting women's movement and behavior (i.e., which also indicates a degree of choice in the process – some men, at some point, must have decided to (unfortunately, successfully) try and codify the policies). As time passed these laws and social norms became more and more ingrained, ultimately leading to the patriarchy we know today.

Again, please recognize that I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory of the patriarchy's origins. I add this primarily to showcase how many factors may have interacted, but also to demonstrate how any theory will have problems. For example, holes in the above theory include:

We know women have been, and are, involved with the defense of their families and homes. So, why hasn't this also favored women with naturally high aggression? If it actually has, then at what point did society start emphasizing docility in women? What factor resulted in compliance with this new norm? We also know that men are primarily "protective" of women they consider "their own (property)". So if men were primarily protecting "their" women from other men ... then men were already thinking of women as a resource, implying evidence of a patriarchy prior to this initial time point. If this is the case, then what factor came before this?

Further, if women were treated like a resource (i.e., for reproduction) following the invention of agriculture, what is to say they were not also treated this way prior to the invention of agriculture? If they were treated as such, why are there are other species in which this does not happen? What factors result in these differences?

How was the codification of women's oppression successful when there was, presumably, a point in time in which these norms did not yet exist? We can only assume that early women – as fully realized, independent people – would resist obvious attempts at such restriction, so how were these laws initially created and proposed? To assume there would be no resistance implies that women were either already oppressed en mass prior to the codification of such policies or that they generally supported such policies. Both of these assumptions are likely erroneous: how could there be organized, ubiquitous, oppression of women in complex societies without any centralized organization, and why would one assume early women were any less likely to advocate for their own self-interest than early men?

What degree did choice play? If the patriarchy truly did emerge independently in many different places, and the creation of the patriarchy included at least some element of choice, why do we not have strong evidence of any societies fully rejecting patriarchy? Alternately, do we have any evidence of societies fully rejecting patriarchy (either implementing a matriarchy or true egalitarianism)? If so, are there any other factors that differentiate these societies? Was men's choice to codify laws the ultimate factor? If so, what made them so inclined to codify such laws? If it was purely self-interest, then why were no early resistance movements successful?

Those are only a portion of possible critiques, so clearly the proposed scenario is flawed. My central point is really that any theory will be flawed.

To me, the more important question is what perpetuates the patriarchy now (e.g., patriarchal religions, patriarchal laws, commodification of women's bodies, gender stereotypes, etc.) and what we can do about these factors (e.g., legal opposition, gender abolition, etc.). Most importantly, in modern society, the patriarchy is perpetuated by both active choices (e.g., men choosing to pass laws that restrict women's bodily autonomy, men protecting sexual predators, etc.) and passive actions (e.g., compliance with restrictive gender stereotypes, ignoring sexist rhetoric in organized religions, etc.). It is therefore these choices that we must work to shift.

I hope this helps you! It was an interesting topic to research!

References below the cut:

Hansen, C. W., Jensen, P. S., & Skovsgaard, C. V. (2015). Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the Neolithic inheritance. Journal of Economic Growth, 20, 365-404.

Lerner, Gerda, and Gerda Lerner. The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

Saini, A. (2021). The patriarchs: The origins of inequality. Beacon Press.

Kraemer, S. (1991). The origins of fatherhood: An ancient family process. Family process, 30(4), 377-392.

Wrangham, Richard (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. Basic Books.

Potts, M., & Campbell, M. (2008). The origins and future of patriarchy: the biological background of gender politics. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 34(3), 171–174. doi:10.1783/147118908784734792

Goldberg, S. H. (1974). The inevitability of patriarchy.

UCL. “Analysis: How Did the Patriarchy Start – and Will Evolution Get Rid of It?” UCL News, 20 Sept. 2022, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/sep/analysis-how-did-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-it.

Engels, F. (2001). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Wellred Books.

Venkataraman, V. V., Hoffman, J., Farquharson, K., Davis, H. E., Hagen, E. H., Hames, R. B., ... & Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. (2024). Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real: a comment on Anderson et al.(2023) The Myth of Man the Hunter. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Kaufmann, J. H. (1983). On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biological reviews, 58(1), 1-20.

Allen, M. W., & Jones, T. L. (2014). Violence and warfare among hunter-gatherers. Left Coast Press.

Curry, Andrew. “Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/.

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Lewis, R. J., Kirk, E. C., & Gosselin-Ildari, A. D. (2023). Evolutionary patterns of intersexual power. Animals, 13(23), 3695.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Pare, Sascha. “6 Animals Where Females Reign Supreme.” Livescience.Com, 4 July 2024, https://www.livescience.com/animals/animals-where-females-reign-supreme.

“In Real Life, Simba’s Mom Would Be Running the Pride.” Animals, 8 July 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lion-pride-family-dynamics-females.

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16), 9103-9104.

*Please note that some of these sources are books that I have not read in their entirety. I also don't necessarily agree with all/any of the content, as I am merely presenting them as sources for the various theories/counter-arguments. They should all be read critically.

**Please also remember my disclaimer ... I did my best, but there are probably more/other/better sources on these topics out there.

[pekoehoneyncream]

König MBTI Type

Quick Run Down: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality typing device based on Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. It sorts people into 16 different personality types based on four pairs of opposite traits: Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I), Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N), Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F), & Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P)

König is ISTP

Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving.

(Fair warning, most of this is ripped straight from mbti sites, w/ minor wording edits from me)

Core Characteristics:

Independent and Self-Reliant: They value their independence and prefer to operate autonomously. ISTPs are often self-sufficient and capable of handling tasks on their own without needing much external support.

Practical and Realistic: They approach challenges with a practical mindset, focusing on finding effective and efficient solutions. They might prefer hands-on methods and immediate fixes rather than theoretical discussions. They favor tangible, factual information over abstract theories. This preference for concrete data helps them feel more grounded.

Practical and Hands-On: ISTPs are highly practical and enjoy working with their hands. They are skilled at understanding how things work and prefer to learn through direct experience rather than theoretical concepts.

Detail-Oriented Focus: When engaging in activities or projects, they pay close attention to the specifics and details. This focus helps them manage tasks effectively but can also lead to heightened stress if things don’t go as planned.

Tendency to Withdraw: When feeling overwhelmed, they may retreat into solitude to process their thoughts and regain composure. This withdrawal helps them recharge and regain a sense of control.

Reserved and Private: They tend to keep their thoughts and feelings to themselves, sharing personal insights only with those they trust deeply. This preference for privacy helps them manage their internal world without external pressures.

In Relationships:

Pros:

Problem-Solving Skills: ISTPs are excellent at tackling problems head-on with a logical and practical approach. In a relationship, this means they often find effective solutions to challenges, making them reliable partners in difficult situations. Their ability to stay calm under pressure can be a grounding force.

Loyalty: Despite their reserved nature, ISTPs are deeply loyal to those they care about. In both romantic and platonic relationships, they’re committed and will go to great lengths to support their loved ones. Their loyalty often creates a strong sense of trust and security.

Adventurous Spirit: ISTPs love new experiences and are often spontaneous, which can make relationships exciting and full of unexpected adventures. They’re the type to surprise you with an impromptu road trip or encourage you to try something new. This keeps the relationship dynamic and engaging.

Self-Reliance: They tend to be very independent and don’t demand constant attention, giving their partners or friends plenty of space. This independence can be refreshing, as they don’t cling to others for validation. It allows for a balanced relationship where both parties can maintain their own identities.

Practical Support: ISTPs are hands-on and often express care through actions rather than words. They’ll fix things, solve problems, or help out in practical ways, making them reliable when it comes to getting things done. This practical support is often appreciated in both romantic and friendship contexts.

Cons:

Emotional Reservedness: ISTPs can struggle to express their emotions, which might leave their partners or friends feeling disconnected or unsure about where they stand. This emotional distance can sometimes be mistaken for a lack of interest or care. It might require patience to navigate their reserved nature.

Difficulty with Open Communication: While ISTPs are great at solving practical problems, they might avoid or downplay issues that involve deeper emotional or relational complexities. This can lead to misunderstandings or unresolved conflicts in the relationship. Partners and friends may find it challenging to get them to open up about their feelings.

Overly Independent: ISTPs often pride themselves on their self-sufficiency, which can make it difficult for them to ask for help or rely on others, even when they need it. This independence can lead to unnecessary struggles, as they might push themselves too hard rather than leaning on their partner or friends. It can also create a sense of distance, as they may not share their challenges, leaving others feeling shut out or unable to support them.

Overly Critical: ISTPs' focus on logic can sometimes make them overly critical or blunt, especially when they feel something isn’t efficient or doesn’t make sense. This can hurt the feelings of those who are more sensitive, even if the ISTP doesn’t intend to cause harm. Their straightforwardness might be misinterpreted as insensitivity.

Need for Alone Time: ISTPs value their alone time highly and might withdraw unexpectedly to recharge, which can be confusing or hurtful to those who don’t understand this need. This withdrawal isn’t a reflection of the relationship’s value but rather a necessity for time alone without any judgment. However, it can create tension if the other person feels neglected.

Risk-Taking Behavior: Their adventurous nature can sometimes lead to impulsive decisions that may cause concern or stress for those around them. This risk-taking behavior can be thrilling but also unpredictable, leading to instability in the relationship. Partners and friends might struggle to keep up with or support their spontaneous actions.

PekoeHoneynCream's Masterlist

[icedq-toranainc]

Data Reliability Engineering - Concept, Phases & Implementation Data Reliability Engineering is a critical practice ensuring data integrity and availability. Learn about its key concepts, phases, and implementation strategies. Discover how data reliability engineering can improve data quality and enhance your organization's decision-making capabilities. Learn more in this article

[xyymath]

📊 The Mathematics of Understanding Society: Statistics in Social Sciences

1. Reliability: Quantifying Consistency

Reliability ensures that statistical results are consistent across time and methods. It is measured through techniques like:

Test-Retest Reliability: Same participants, repeated measures.

Inter-Rater Reliability: Agreement between multiple observers.

Internal Consistency: Correlation of test items, often measured using Cronbach’s Alpha.

Formula for internal consistency:

where N is the number of items, cbar is the average covariance between item pairs, and v is the total item variance.

2. Validity: Ensuring Relevance

Validity measures whether data reflects the intended concept. Types include:

Construct Validity: Evaluates how well a test aligns with theoretical concepts.

Criterion Validity: Measures correlation with related, independent outcomes.

Content Validity: Assesses if the test covers the full scope of the concept.

3. Sampling Theory: Representing Populations

In statistics, sampling bridges finite data and infinite populations. Randomized methods minimize bias, while stratified or cluster sampling improves efficiency. The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) guarantees that sampling distributions approximate normality for large sample sizes.

where SE is the standard error, sigma is the population standard deviation, and n is the sample size

4. Minimizing Bias

Bias skews results, reducing reliability and validity. Statistical techniques such as blind sampling, control groups, and adjustments for confounders mitigate these effects. Weighted averages or regression adjustments help correct sampling bias.

5. Significance Testing: Inference in Social Sciences

Statistical tests like t-tests and ANOVA assess relationships in data. P-values determine significance, while effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s dbar) quantify practical importance.

Example: For comparing group means, the test statistic t is:

where Xbar is the sample mean, s^2 the variance, and n the sample size.

6. Predictive Modeling

Social scientists employ regression models for predictions, such as linear regression:

where β0 is the intercept, β1 the slope, and ϵ the error term.

7. Ethics and Transparency

Statistical transparency is non-negotiable. Misinterpretation or manipulation (e.g., p-hacking) compromises the integrity of findings. Open data and replication strengthen credibility.

"It's easy to lie with statistics. It's hard to tell the truth without statistics"  Darrell Huff

References : (and further reading material)

source one

source two

source three

[probablyasocialecologist]

Fashion waste manifests at three stages in the value chain: during the production process where surplus raw materials accumulate; in warehouses where excess buffer stocks settle; and in landfills where post-consumer waste mounts. While the instant fashion model does likely reduce buffer stocks (although the companies don’t share these data to validate their claims), it’s hyper-dependence on fossil fuel-based polyester summed with the short half-life of its cheap clothing causes consequential environmental damage at the other stages of the process. Instant fashion’s popularity overlaps with the surge in plastic as a fashion input. Prior to 2000, natural fibers (such as cotton and wool) were the primary inputs to clothing. However, as fossil fuel producers have come under pressure from the growth of renewables, growth in plastic supply has proved a welcome offset with the fashion industry serving as a reliable customer. Cheaper, more readily available, and with some preferred properties (e.g. quick-drying, wrinkle-proof, durable, ability to “take” color, and more), synthetics have powered the growth of activewear and instant fashion. While consumers have benefited from lower prices, the negative impacts of synthetics are an environmental scourge. Energy used to produce plastics is often fossil fuel-intensive leading to increases in carbon emissions. During a plastic garment’s useful life, it sheds microplastics into waterways that end up in the food supply, as do excess concentrations of hazardous chemicals. A recent Greenpeace investigation found that 15% of Shein’s products contain concentrations of hazardous chemicals that breach E.U. regulatory limits. Finally, it takes hundreds of years for cheap synthetic shoes and shirts to decompose, all the while emitting methane and further contributing to climate change. (It’s important to note that even producing clothing with natural, untreated fabrics impacts the environment; the most sustainable option is to produce and consume less.)

[imjustaf444keriguess]

sources time

(base links for some of the sources: sophie's page, the guardians doc. also note i am not a scientist and could be wrong, and some of these sources might not be super good sources or reliable. if you wish to debunk any sources and their claims with better evidence, feel free. also, not all of these sources directly say "this is 100% a real phenomenon", but shows that currently, there are studies being worked on and planned to explore what people are already experiencing, and how non-traumagenic plurality differs from traumagenic plurality)

edit: adding a read more, nothing has changed i just hate scrolling past this on my blog

the tulpa study's AMA (if it's been published i'll edit this once i know of it)

Collective-Screaming 6mo ago Hi! Nice to see you two here :D If you can say, what differences did you find between how the brain expresses both the host and the created headmate (tulpa)? Was there any difference between when someone was fully switched in and just controlling (possessing, whether fully or just some parts of) the body?

michael_lifshitz 6mo ago Hi, thanks for your question! Our strongest finding was when we looked at tulpa possession. We were using a simple writing task in the fMRI. We found that when a tulpa is possessing the body and writing a sentence, there is reduced activity in a particular part of the brain that's involved in planning actions and having a sense of agency over your actions (the pre-supplementary motor area, or pre-SMA). This suggests that tulpamancers have learned to down-regulate this key agency/planning region, which lets an alternative agent (the tulpa) take control. It's pretty amazing that tulpa systems can do this on demand. We did have a few tulpamancers who could switch, but we haven't carefully looked at their data yet to see how it's different from normal possession. That's a secondary analysis we're planning after the main results come out :)

(there is more information in the AMA thread, but this comment is Lifshitz using the term "tulpa system", which is amusing when anti-endos and sysmeds insist that system is exclusive to DID.)

tulpas and mental health, a study of online tulpamancers and their experiences with mental health

an "explorative interview study" on multiples personal experiences

"exploring the experiences of young people with multiplicity" mentions:

Respondents discussed that there is a lack of understanding regarding how multiplicity develops without a basis in trauma. For respondents who did not have a trauma history, they described feeling ‘left out of the conversation’ and ‘unable to access support’ or resources. Many people discussed multiplicity in terms of being an experience and a part of their lives, rather than being a ‘disorder’ which needs to be treated or cured. [...] A greater level of understanding and resources were mentioned as being needed within both research and practice.

a similar paper by the same people as the above one that's "exploring the utility and personal relevance of co-produced multiplicity resources"

1.Assuming that someone has multiplicity because they have been abused can be experienced as disempowering and impersonal. Don’t assume a trauma history or pathology. If suitable and appropriate, the young person may wish to confide in you in their own time. An identify of being multiple can exist separately from a young person who has experienced abuse. Multiplicity can be viewed as posiitve by young people.

conceptualizing multiplicity spectrum experiences

5.1.1 Misinterpretation of multiplicity experiences Research discussed the lack of diversity encapsulated in current explanations of multiplicity, with primarily medicalised perspectives explored and validated by support and research (Floris & McPherson, 2015). Individuals discussed the link between their experiences and past traumatic events, which they often felt was part of the development of multiplicity (McRae et al., 2017; Parry et al., 2018); however, the conceptualizations of their trauma varied. While some discussed multiplicity in terms of protective factors against trauma (Fox et al., 2013; Zeligman et al., 2017), others felt experiences were separate from prior trauma (Perry et al., 2007). Often not captured within research that solely focuses on clinical aspects of multiplicity, not all experiences were discussed as being a result of trauma, which added to the complexity in understanding (Ribáry et al., 2017). The lack of standardized language was a barrier to understanding (Černis et al., 2020). Overall, a variety of unique terminology was reported, including ‘multiples’, ‘residents’ and ‘plural identity’ (Blunden & Billie., 2021; Ribáry et al., 2017). As a result, participants felt misaligned with current discussions around multiplicity, which is often more complex than current criteria and language elucidates.

6.1 Multiplicity: Disorder versus experience The findings of this review support the notion that multiplicity experiences are complex and varied, existing across a continuum inclusive of multiplicity, DID and derealization–depersonalization (Sar, 2011). Findings also recognized that individuals with lived experiences can struggle to articulate their experiences, perhaps due to a limited framework of available language, representative of our developing understanding and the nuances surrounding multiplicity. Consequently, as with other mental health experiences, multiplicity is often oversimplified and depersonalized, leading people to question their identity, exacerbating one of the central tenants of depersonalization, rather than supporting self-acceptance. As detailed in Table 2, there are unique features associated with multiplicity, DID and depersonalization–derealization disorder, which warrant individual exploration, terminology and support.

the creators of the TOSD mentioning other forms of plurality and the need to study them

Dissociation in Hypnosis and Mediumship Our definition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other definitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality. For example, Hilgard's well-known “hidden observer,” as found in some highly hypnotizable subjects, involves a dissociative part of the personality that is endowed with consciousness and self-consciousness, but the phenomenon is disputed (e.g., CitationKihlstrom, 1998; CitationKirsch & Lynn, 1998). Mediumship may involve conscious and self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality (CitationBraude, 1995). However, dissociation in mediums is in several regards different from dissociation in DID (CitationMoreira-Almeida, Neto, & Cardeña, 2008). The possible involvement of consciousness and self-consciousness in dissociated controls in hypnosis and in dissociative parts in mediumship needs to be examined in more detail before a conclusive general definition of dissociation can be formulated.

the ICD and DSM's exclusions. notably, the ICD uses the same language for its "boundary with normality" as it does for the alters themselves.

(EG is "for example", so it is not the only possibility it's excluding)

(note criteria C and D)

[jingerpi]

one thing I will say with regard to logical argumentation is that while logical fallacies are genuinely very useful to know and understand, I find one of the critical flaws they have in understanding discourse is that they don't really touch on epistemology. most people are aware of the fallacy fallacy, but it's a bit less common to address the difference between validity and truth, where an argument for something can be correct in that it follows from the premises, but incorrect in that it's premises are just outright false. this is where it can be important to understand the differences and similarities between formal and informal logic.

One area I think this comes up a lot is with a genetic fallacy. Genetic fallacies pop up in a number of places but sometimes they're used to persuade people not to dismiss information simply because it comes from a source they consider untrustworthy, but often, responding to someone complaining about sources with "that's a genetic fallacy" isn't actually addressing their point, because they're often fundamentally arguing that the premises of this argument are incorrect, I.e. the data itself is wrong, rather than trying to say the specific argument or conclusions themselves are wrong. logical fallacies only address reasoning and conclusions not premises or reality.

There are plenty of formally valid or logical statements which simply aren't true and don't correspond to reality. You have to do more than check the validity of an argument, you have to check if their premises correspond to reality. And in this context, when we approach things epistemologically, it makes a lot of sense to look at some sources as more trustworthy than others, because we're not just trying to address their arguments, we're trying to ensure their premises, their claims about reality, are reliably true

[alianoralacanta]

Hi! So I am a newer fan and I know you've been a Charles fan for so long, was it really unusual for him to be this outspoken about Ferrari and his true feelings after the races? Because the way some people responded to his statement you would think he flipped the middle finger to Sainz and his entire family.

I also know he has this reputation to be more PR-oriented than Sainz. I think it was China where Charles said he and Carlos had talked and everything was fine in response to a journalist, and Carlos had said the complete opposite, that they hadn't talked at all.

Judging from my activity panel, a few other people have had similar questions…

Charles sometimes gets outspoken out of anger after races. It's not common, but also within character for him. For people who've followed Charles long enough, he tends to "leak" the emotions he's feeling no matter how hard he tries to hide them, to the point where even I, who in most circumstances is pretty bad at interpreting body language, can reliably do so. Usually he keeps an impressive amount of verbal control while still making it obvious what he feels. Sometimes, though, this does not happen. Before Spain 2024, the target of the outspokenness was always one of two people: himself, and whoever his team boss happened to be at the time. The outbursts against himself became notorious, especially Baku 2019 and Turkey 2020. If you hear about journalists talking about Charles being self-deprecating or looking to improve his own performance before looking to others, that reputation got founded on him being vocally harsh towards his own mistakes on the radio and in subsequent interviews on several occasions. To the point where a lot of Charles' fans outright fear the "Leclerc radio" message appearing following a mistake. He's got better at keeping things in proportion now, but knowing how harsh he can be helps with understanding what happens when others raise his ire. There are two occasions where he had significant outbursts like this towards a boss: Singapore 2019 and Silverstone 2022. On the first of these, Charles thought he'd got a third win in a row in the bag. However, Sebastian Vettel made an early stop in order to protect his ability to fight for a podium spot (something Charles wasn't offered since Ferrari had no especial reason to believe his win was under threat in that direction) - and it was so effective Sebastian ended up leading, and winning, the race. it soon emerged that Charles did not have a valid complaint to make, but he was so angry that he complained anyway. (Charles ended up apologising later that week, after his error was explained to him). This, I think, is what some of Carlos' fans think Charles was doing on Sunday but wasn't. They think Charles complained without cause, took the shine off what was otherwise a special occasion for them (Carlos' last Ferrari race in Spain until further notice) - and thus they think Charles owes them an apology. However, Charles has always been careful to leave a certain amount of ambiguity in his post-race verbal conduct towards team-mates, even when he's upset with them. He's sometimes had to assert boundaries with Carlos in the past when Carlos has overstepped a boundary, and sometimes queried something Sebastian did, but always with an eye to keeping channels of communication open. A "we'll talk about this" or "I need to see the data" can change a blunt criticism into a perspective that could potentially require other perspectives to understand the full truth. The latter tends to be more palatable to observers and thus PR people, even if both allow Charles' true opinions to be voiced.

[academicfever]

Research 101: Last part

#Citing sources and the bibliography:

Citation has various functions: ■■ To acknowledge work by other researchers. ■■ To anchor your own text in the context of different disciplines. ■■ To substantiate your own claims; sources then function like arguments with verification.

Use Mendeley:

It has a number of advantages in comparison to other software packages: (1) it is free, (2) it is user-friendly, (3) you can create references by dragging a PDF file into the program (it automatically extracts the author, title, year, etc.), (4) you can create references by using a browser plug-in to click on a button on the page where you found an article, (5) you can share articles and reference lists with colleagues, and (6) it has a ‘web importer’ to add sources rapidly to your own list.

plagiarism – and occasionally even fraud – are sometimes detected, too. In such cases, appeals to ignorance (‘I didn’t know that it was plagiarism’) are rarely accepted as valid reasons for letting the perpetrator off the hook.

#Peer review

For an official peer review of a scholarly article, 3-4 experts are appointed by the journal to which the article has been submitted. These reviewers give anonymous feedback on the article. As a reviewer, based on your critical reading, you can make one of the following recommendations to the editor of the journal: ■■Publish as submitted. The article is good as it is and can be published (this hardly ever happens). ■■Publish after minor revisions. The article is good and worth publishing, but some aspects need to be improved before it can be printed. If the adjustments can be made easily (for example, a small amount of rewriting, formatting figures), these are considered minor revisions. ■■Publish after major revisions. The article is potentially worth publishing, but there are significant issues that need to be reconsidered. For example, setting up additional (control) experiments, using a new method to analyse the data, a thorough review of the theoretical framework (addition of important theories), and gathering new information (in an archive) to substantiate the argumentation. ■■Reject. The research is not interesting, it is not innovative, or it has been carried out/written up so badly that this cannot be redressed.

#Checklist for analysing a research article or paper 1 Relevance to the field (anchoring) a What is the goal of the research or paper? b To what extent has this goal been achieved? c What does the paper or research article add to knowledge in the field? d Are theories or data missing? To what extent is this a problem? 2 Methodology or approach a What approach has been used for the research? b Is this approach consistent with the aim of the research? c How objective or biased is this approach? d How well has the research been carried out? What are the methodological strengths and/or weaknesses? e Are the results valid and reliable? 3 Argumentation and use of evidence a Is there a clear description of the central problem, objective, or hypothesis? b What claims are made? c What evidence underlies the argument? d How valid and reliable is this evidence? e Is the argumentation clear and logical? f Are the conclusions justified? 4 Writing style and structure of the text a Is the style of the text suitable for the medium/audience? b Is the text structured clearly, so the reader can follow the writer’s line of argumentation? c Are the figures and tables displayed clearly?

#Presenting ur research:

A few things are always important, in any case, when it comes to guiding the audience through your story: ■■ Make a clear distinction between major and minor elements. What is the key theme of your story, and which details does your audience need in order to understand it? ■■ A clearly structured, coherent story. ■■ Good visual aids that represent the results visually. ■■ Good presentation skills.

TIPS ■■Find out everything about the audience that you’ll be presenting your story to, and look at how you can ensure that your presentation is relevant for them.

Ask yourself the following questions: •What kind of audience will you have (relationship with audience)? •What does the audience already know about your topic and how can you connect with this (knowledge of the audience)? •What tone or style should you adopt vis-à-vis the audience (style of address)? •What do you want the audience to take away from your presentation?

■■If you know there is going to be a round of questions, include some extra slides for after the conclusion. You can fill these extra slides with all kinds of detailed information that you didn’t have time for during the presentation. If you’re on top of your material, you’ll be able to anticipate which questions might come up. It comes over as very professional if you’re able to back up an answer to a question from the audience with an extra graph or table, for example.

■■Think about which slide will be shown on the screen as you’re answering questions at the end of your presentation. A slide with a question mark is not informative. It’s more useful for the audience if you end with a slide with the main message and possibly your contact details, so that people are able to contact you later. ■■Think beforehand about what you will do if you’re under time pressure. What could you say more succinctly or even omit altogether?

This has a number of implications for a PowerPoint presentation: ■■ Avoid distractions that take up cognitive space, such as irrelevant images, sounds, too much text/words on a slide, intense colours, distracting backgrounds, and different fonts. ■■ Small chunks of information are easier to understand and remember. This is the case for both the text on a slide and for illustrations, tables, and graphs. ■■ When you are talking to your audience, it is usually better to show a slide with a picture than a slide with a lot of text. What you should do: ■■ Ensure there is sufficient contrast between your text and the background. ■■ Ensure that all of the text is large enough (at least 20 pt). ■■ Use a sans-serif font; these are the easiest to read when enlarged. ■■ Make the text short and concise. Emphasize the most important concepts by putting them in bold or a different colour. ■■ Have the texts appear one by one on the slide, in sync with your story. This prevents the audience from ‘reading ahead’. ■■ Use arrows, circles, or other ways of showing which part of an illustration, table, or graph is important. You can also choose to fade out the rest of the image, or make a new table or graph showing only the relevant information.

A good presentation consists of a clear, substantive story, good visual aids, and effective presentation techniques.

Stand with both feet firmly on the ground.

Use your voice and hand gestures.

Make eye contact with all of your audience.

Add enough pauses/use punctuation.

Silences instead of fillers.

Think about your position relative to your audience and the screen.

Explaining figures and tables.

Keep your hands calm.

Creating a safe atmosphere

Do not take a position yourself. This limits the discussion, because it makes it trickier to give a dissenting opinion.

You can make notes on a whiteboard or blackboard, so that everyone can follow the key points.

Make sure that you give the audience enough time to respond.

Respond positively to every contribution to the discussion, even if it doesn’t cut any ice.

Ensure that your body language is open and that you rest your arms at your sides.

#Points to bear in mind when designing a poster

TIPS 1 Think about what your aim is: do you want to pitch a new plan, or do you want to get your audience interested in your research? 2 Explain what you’ve done/are going to do: focus on the problem that you’ve solved/want to solve, or the question that you’ve answered. Make it clear why it is important to solve this problem or answer this question. 3 Explain what makes your approach unique. 4 Involve your audience in the conversation by concluding with an open question. For example: how do you research…? Or, after a pitch for a method to tackle burnout among staff: how is burnout dealt with in your organization?

[jjmcquade-misc]

Allegations of Electoral Fraud in Michigan Spark Debate Over Voter Roll Integrity

March 25, 2025 A recent report from The Gateway Pundit has ignited fresh controversy in Michigan, where data analyst Tim Vetter of Data Evaluation of Election Processes (DEEP) alleges that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office illegally erased over 35,000 voter histories from the state’s voter rolls. This revelation, tied to two 2024 special elections, has raised serious questions about election integrity in a state that has long been a battleground for partisan disputes over voting processes.

According to Vetter, the missing voter history records violate Michigan laws MCL 168.932(c), which prohibits fraudulent alterations to vote history records, and MCL 168.509q(1)(f), which mandates that voter histories be maintained for a five-year period. The erased records pertain to special elections held on January 30 and April 16, 2024, to replace two Democratic state representatives. Vetter’s analysis revealed discrepancies between the “Source QVF” (Qualified Voter File) held by local clerks and the “Altered QVF” managed by Benson’s Bureau of Elections (BOE), with the latter missing vote history data for all 10 sample voter IDs he tested.

Vetter, a respected Manufacturing Equipment Engineer who has spent years scrutinizing Michigan’s voter rolls, told The Gateway Pundit, “We have never reviewed an accurate list of voters in the vote history data from Jocelyn Benson’s BOE.” He argues that such discrepancies, bloated voter rolls and altered histories, create opportunities for electoral fraud and make auditing elections nearly impossible. “They could fix this today if they wanted,” Vetter added, calling for the BOE to publish accurate voter lists and secure the data.

The allegations have quickly been seized upon by Republican figures, who argue that this incident validates their long-standing claims of systemic election fraud, particularly against former President Donald Trump. Michigan, a key swing state, was at the center of Trump’s 2020 election challenges after he lost to Joe Biden by 154,000 votes, a margin of 3 percentage points. A 2021 report by the Republican-led Michigan Senate Oversight Committee found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, but Trump and his allies have continued to push for investigations, often citing irregularities in voter rolls as evidence of malfeasance.

Benson, a Democrat who has served as Michigan’s Secretary of State since 2019, has not yet publicly responded to the allegations. Her office has faced prior criticism from Republicans over voter roll maintenance, with some accusing her of failing to remove inactive voters, a charge her administration has denied, pointing to regular updates in compliance with state law. The current controversy, however, raises new concerns about transparency and accountability, especially as Michigan prepares for future elections, including the 2026 midterms.

For Republicans, the erased voter histories are seen as part of a pattern of electoral misconduct that disproportionately harms their candidates. The Gateway Pundit’s post echoed this sentiment, with some calling for Benson’s prosecution and others questioning why such issues seem to persist in Democratic-led states. Republican losses in Arizona and other battleground states, Trump’s 2024 victories were undermined by “usual games” in down-ballot races.

As the debate rages on, the lack of accurate voter history data in Michigan remains a pressing issue. Without a transparent and reliable voter roll, public trust in the electoral process, already strained by years of partisan battles, may erode further. Whether Benson’s office will address these allegations with concrete action remains to be seen, but for now, Michigan’s voter rolls have once again become a flashpoint in the nation’s ongoing struggle over election integrity.