#research and methods

[transmutationisms]

Hey. So that claim that stimulants do completely different things for people who “have ADHD” and “don’t have ADHD” is obviously bullshit but I was wondering if you happen to have read anything I could refer to about that

Okay I want to try using this to break down how I would actually approach this type of question, inspired by some posts I've seen recently about how to read and analyse things that are wrong / bad / liberal.

I don't have, off the top of my head, a published & refereed source that discusses this particular claim. I'm pretty certain there is at least one such thing out there. But I'm also pretty confident it won't be very good. The claim it's responding to is relatively historically recent, & is cloaked in still-fashionable neurobiological terms. Also, the literature on ADHD is bad in general, and so is the general quality of the kinds of imaging studies that are cited to support such claims about 'brain differences.'

If I were writing a literature review or a historiography, here is the part where I would need to go find these things anyway. Then I would have to explain how they make their arguments and what's missing, and depending on the scope of the piece I might have to explain my own philosophical / political position, and advance my methodological critique of the literature I just spent several days finding & reading.

Fortunately I'm writing a tumblr post & my sense is your actual question is "how can I better argue against this obviously bullshit claim," so I don't have to do any of that. There's not really much point sinking that kind of time and effort into finding a source I already think is unlikely to adequately make the argument I'm looking for anyway.

Instead, I would now look at the claim itself. What must be true in order for it to hold?

ADHD brains differ from non-ADHD brains

This difference is relevant to the action/metabolism of stimulant drugs

Okay, claim two on that list requires dealing with psychopharmacology & very exact physiological mechanisms, which means a shitload more reading and most of it punishingly dry and technical. Sad & bad.

Fortunately, though, I already know -- from every reading ever, as well as my experience existing on earth -- that ADHD is not diagnosed by any sort of brain scan, anatomical observation, blood test, etc, but by subjective (yes, even if they made you do it on a computer) clinical observation. Hmm, that's super weird for something that is a 'brain difference.'

I also know that psychiatric categories are difficult to correlate with biological observations even where those observations do exist, because an imaging study on ADHD is necessarily only pulling the 'ADHD sample' from people already diagnosed with ADHD. It's circular. Philosophically this is the same problem I laid out in section one of 'What is an alien?' (which you can read & understand even if the main topic of the essay doesn't interest you).

And I also know that brain imaging studies generally are riddled with serious methodological flaws (post discusses the dead salmon study among others) and don't actually produce meaningful, replicable biological distinctions in any kind of correlation with psychiatric categories (also, variation within categories is also very high).

Oh, wait. Now the claim above looks like patent nonsense with zero philosophical foundations. The burden of proof is on whoever's making that claim, & the basic underlying principles are wrong. Yayyyy.

This exercise means 1) I've sat down and reasoned through my own opinion, giving me clarity on why I think what I do and what evidence would change my mind and 2) from now on, when I see someone else make the claim I'm responding to here, I'll know off the bat that they haven't done the same & are starting from a very credulous attitude toward very low-quality research. And I didn't do this by trawling the literature until I found the exact thing I was looking for, but by thinking through the arguments and evaluating a body of literature that is generally explicitly hostile to the kinds of critiques I make & respect.

[whotookcheesuschrist]

"My companion flushed up with pleasure at my words, and the earnest way in which I uttered them. I had already observed that he was as sensitive to flattery on the score of his art as any girl could be to her beauty."

An actual image of Sherlock Holmes

[devilsmarmalade]

being known for writing yaoi is crazy bc i have much cooler insects interests. like i could tell you a degree's worth of information about mushrooms and insects. like how there's a species of termite that farms mushrooms. did you know that?

[miedei]

Spencer loves spending time with you, to the extent that he'll just sit in a room with you, watching you do your thing, like an absolute creep. And although you adore him, it becomes a little grating to be watched all the time, so you devise a solution.

Every time you settle in with a task and he very conspicuously doesn't have one, you section off a part of yours for him to do.

If you're going through paperwork for your job, handing him a stack and asking him to organise them for you gets his hands moving.

If you're working on a hobby project, giving him a tactile thing to do allows him to stare and for you to feel less like a zoo animal. Handing him a bunched-up knot of yarn to untangle, Lego pieces to sort into piles, or some beads so he can make his own bracelet and not be glued to yours, helps tremendously in keeping him sated and you from combusting.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

"What do you mean their name isn't Beef?"

(for @moondal514)

[thebreadmantm]

Ok confession, I have not been up to date on the @hemi-demi oathbreaker fic bc I have been so busy but I read through it a few days ago and AHHHDJSVDJSHBS DRAGON GERRY AHHHH

I love him so much. I am not ok

His clothes aren’t as easy to take of as Jon’s but I pretty sure Hemi said they are worse at maintaining their glamor than other dragons. So idk maybe he’s fine

[barely-getting-bi]

spock with his hair that looks like a lego piece taking in a child with really curly hair and having to figure out how to properly take care of her curls and then having to figure out how to get saavik to be still long enough for him to actually take care of them

[neverpathia]

so, in honour of the upcoming sexyman tournament...

here's someone's dad once more, this time in full colour.

he's going to be stuck in this dress until the tourney's safely by. it's not exactly the sort of thing he'd choose to wear, but hey, he's looking fancy at least.

you can blame his brother for the getup.

also, I'd rather draw him in this for a month straight than work on his actual design because I know nothing about skeptic.

@voice-of-the-sexyman psst Mai and Ian come get your food

version without static under the cut

[mofsblog]

another post clinical trial game concept: lee does angel's top surgery

DIY top surgery by your partner is one of the most romantic things ever. Cute date idea. I was gonna question if Lee had the qualifications or materials for that and then thought about it more and honestly, I feel like he'd be able to figure it out

[transmutationisms]

hi - looking to get more into reading history books instead of just researching online… do you have any tips on vetting books/authors for liberalism, racism, etc… in the past i’ve found this very hard to do with nonfiction before actually reading the book. are there publishers, etc i should be looking out for? esp bc there’s ideas/trains of thoughts/scholars i might not recognize as biased, liberal, conservative etc. if i’m not well-versed in the discourse of the subject.

in general if you are looking for refereed (peer-reviewed) academic nonfic, you are going to have to assume the texts will reflect not only the ideological values of the institutions (universities and university presses) that produce them, but also the winnowing effect that ensures only a select few people even get the opportunity to publish this way -- these individuals also have class interests and those tend to overlap heavily with those of the institutions, both because people who can make it to this stage of an academic career tend to be bourgeois and petit-bourgeois to begin with, and because even those who weren't almost invariably come down with a case of temporarily embarrassed petit-bourgeois syndrome sometime in between phd candidacy and book manuscript submission.

which is to say I really cannot give you a good vetting list to eliminate liberals and racists from your academic nonfic reading. sorry! you will spend a lot of time reading people you disagree with, people who did valuable archival research but interpret it in chronically liberal idealist ways, people who are right on one historical point and wrong on all the others, &c. even when I read the rare communist historian I can't remember ever co-signing the entirety -- this kind of criticism is just part of the process.

I do think, though, there are some helpful things you can look for that can cue you as to whether a book is worth reading critically or is just straight up trash. ymmv and this is definitely a non-exhaustive list but here's some of what I look for:

read the methodology notes in the intro. phrases like "contextualist history" (= social and economic context) are a good sign. "history from below" or "social history" also tend to be helpful (read: this book talks about 'ordinary people' and labourers, not just heads of state and military).

intros should also signpost if the book deals with colonialism and/or imperialism; look for substantive statements about these.

in rare cases in certain subfields you may see references to a distinction between 'internalist' (idealist, whiggish, great man histories) vs 'externalist' (contextualist) approaches.

everybody in history footnotes foucault, so that means nothing in any direction. anybody who footnotes marx positively in the last 30 or so years is at least going to be a fun time, but is often also a dipshit. scan for other big 'theory' names you may recognise -- even before you know the historiography, this can help indicate what you're getting into

you can also read intro + conclusion first, and that can help you gauge whether the chapters are worth it. not always perfectly indicative, though

academic presses are all clowns but if you read a lot in specific areas you will definitely start to get a sense of certain clusters of clownery if you're paying attention to the frontmatter. like for example if a history text came out of berkeley in the 90s it might still be stupid but I do kind of know what flavour of stupid it will be and what I can expect to extract from it

on that note, it literally is helpful to skim the acknowledgments at the beginning and idk why more people don't do this lol. look for names of scholars they credit as having given feedback (on manuscripts or conference presentations), as well as the name of their advisor if it's a first book. the first few times you do this you won't recognise any names and that's fine, but when you start to see repeats or see names you've read before you actually gain a lot of information right off the bat on the author's ideological and political milieux lol

look at what journals it was reviewed in. again reviews in flagship journals don't automatically mean it's good but it tells you about the intended audience, with all the baggage that entails

books reviewed in mass media (legacy newspapers, etc) tend to be aimed at a popular audience and are intended to be more readable, with less dense scholarly references and often thinner primary source work. again this doesn't mean the academic publications are automatically good.

zero shame in reading book reviews, either before or after reading the book. reviewers are part of the same clown system as authors and publishers. but seeing how other scholars talk about the book and topic is very helpful for clueing you into what sorts of debates are happening in the field, what their ideological parameters are, and how the author in question comes down on them

you are allowed and even required to disagree if an author is wrong lol. I would say the no. 1 thing I run across in what I read is like, decent to good historical work on racialisation but the interpretation will be completely distorted by the author being a horrendous liberal who does in fact think that 'race' has some biological reality (while often not believing that they even hold this belief, lmao). when you start seeing arguments like this it's your cue to follow the footnotes and look at the data and archival material included in the book. and if there's none that's just bad methodology!

[corviiids]

"can you do a research task about this issue" = boring, sounds like an assignment, will not keep my focus

"can you conduct an investigation to solve this mystery" = enrichment for the part of my brain that longs to be an old-timey detective, yes i would love to dig through many long and boring documents to find the key that will crack this wide open, i'm on the case

[catboybiologist]

oh dear. it seems that i am a -quickly looks at bio- teeny tiny protozoan unknown to science i hope a beautiful woman studies me and learns my teeny tiny protozoan secrets.

Damn I hope there's a gorgeous protozoa researcher out there to fulfill those wishes bc every model organism I've worked with has been in animalia

[so-true-overdue]

The Grand Illusion of Effective Altruism

In the grand theater of moral philosophy, where the spotlight often shines on the most ostentatious of ethical posturing, effective altruism stands as a paragon of misguided benevolence. Cloaked in the guise of utilitarian virtue, it is a doctrine that purports to save the world with the precision of a mathematical equation, yet often stumbles over its own self-serving, authoritarian, and overly simplistic ideals.

The Self-Serving Savior Complex

At its core, effective altruism is a movement that claims to maximize the good one can do with their resources. However, beneath this veneer of altruistic ambition lies a self-serving savior complex. Proponents often indulge in a form of moral grandstanding, where the act of giving is less about the recipient and more about the giver’s self-image. The movement’s adherents are frequently found basking in the glow of their own perceived magnanimity, as if their philanthropic endeavors were a ticket to moral superiority.

Authoritarian Overtones

Effective altruism, with its rigid adherence to utilitarian calculus, often veers into authoritarian territory. It prescribes a one-size-fits-all approach to philanthropy, dictating which causes are worthy of attention based on a narrow set of criteria. This dogmatic rigidity stifles the diversity of thought and action that is essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of our world. By elevating certain causes above others, it inadvertently marginalizes those who do not fit neatly into its algorithmic framework.

The Perils of Oversimplification

The movement’s penchant for oversimplification is perhaps its most glaring flaw. In its quest to quantify the impact of charitable actions, effective altruism reduces complex social issues to mere numbers on a spreadsheet. This reductionist approach fails to account for the nuanced realities of human suffering and the intricate web of factors that contribute to it. By focusing solely on measurable outcomes, it overlooks the intangible, yet equally vital, aspects of human well-being.

A Call for Holistic Altruism

In contrast to the narrow confines of effective altruism, a more holistic approach to philanthropy recognizes the importance of empathy, cultural sensitivity, and local knowledge. It values the voices of those it seeks to help and prioritizes their agency in the decision-making process. This alternative model of altruism embraces the complexity of human experience and acknowledges that true change often requires more than just financial investment.

Conclusion: Beyond the Illusion

In conclusion, while effective altruism may present itself as the panacea for global suffering, it is, in reality, a mirage of moral rectitude. Its self-serving nature, authoritarian tendencies, and simplistic worldview render it ill-equipped to address the intricate challenges of our time. Instead, we must strive for a more inclusive and empathetic form of altruism—one that transcends the limitations of mere effectiveness and embraces the full spectrum of human dignity.

[ronniesreverie]

So Lewis Pullman and Danny Ramirez have altered my brain chemistry, and I'm not sure if I can handle them not existing in my life. Their fictional fanon characters have raised my standards so high that I've started questioning my actual relationship, and I'm not sure if this is me being mentally ill or if I'm criticizing him validly.

[kick-the-clouds]

The planet is burning.

The evidence is undeniable. From record-breaking heatwaves to catastrophic floods, human-caused climate change is ravaging our planet, and we are all witnesses. The science is clear: our addiction to fossil fuels, deforestation, and relentless pollution is driving this destruction. Our one-of-a-kind, life-sustaining environment is under siege, and the clock is ticking.

This isn’t a distant problem. It’s here. It’s now. The melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, and burning forests are not just statistics—they are the dying breath of our Earth. We are losing more than just land; we are losing our home.

This isn't just about the environment; it's about survival. We are all part of this intricate web of life, and when we disrupt it, we face the consequences. The Byzantine complexities of our ecosystems, perfected over millions of years, are unraveling before our eyes.

The truth is harsh, but it's not too late. We still have the power to change course, to protect our planet, and to secure a future where our children can thrive. But we must act now. The science demands it, our survival depends on it, and the Earth—our only home—deserves it.

The time for action is now. Let’s not be the generation that witnessed the destruction of our world and did nothing.

[sometimesanequine]

hello! :D

wanted to let you know you’re very cool and i love getting to see your horses every day :)

thank you! :D have a floral pony