This is why everything you hear from pop-evolution theories in sociology is likely bs.
“Women like shopping because they used to be gatherers” or other such garbage.
It’s all trying to simplify human behaviour based on half-baked knowledge of the past, and to pass it off as scientific insight. It’s not much different than the pseudoscience used to fuel racism 100 years ago.
Human behaviour is complex. And even though our societies are more complex now than 10000 years ago, it doesn’t mean people back then were simple.
I leverage hyperfocus as a superpower at work, but it has its downsides. Coworkers say my name’s not “Disguy,” it’s “Disguy Disguy Disguy Disguy Disguy…”
There are a ton of relatable quotes from this study. One that got me was:
“I listen to all feedback and take everything to heart, even if not directly aimed at me. I’m consumed with the feeling I’m not good enough. An example is when my husband moans about the messy pan cupboard it makes me feel like a failure. I know it’s not exactly directed at me but I take it to heart and it makes me feel inadequate and like I can’t get anything right. This is true for most things.”
I remember in 2021 our soil was just better. This year it looks crumbly and like coffee grounds. A lot of Asian jumping worms too, possibly the reason why
Tldr: “while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist’s papers is likely not among them.”
Abstract:
Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6–3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist’s papers is likely not among them.
Feels like a bit of a clickbaity choice of words indeed. That being said I am falling a sleep so only scanned the paper a bit, so can’t really judge this choice of words based on the content tonight
I wonder whether female tears also influence females, and if yes, how. And what about male tears? In rodents, they carry a signal too. And what about the real experts on crying - children?
The Brandt Line is “a way of visualising the world that highlights the disparities and inequalities between the wealthy North and the poorer Global South"
Ah yes, Australia and New Zealand those northern hemisphere countries.
I do know the line is an abstract but it is always funny.
It's a shit abstract and I'm glad others are pointing it out! Let them say what they really mean: "lands blessed with plentiful melanin", because we all know deep down that "Global South" is really a euphemism for "those poor brown foreigners we didn't manage to fully culturally destroy with colonialism".
I mean Turkey, India, and China, really. Countries entirely contained in the Northern hemisphere. Tunisia. come on. But no, not Japan! That is clearly further north than Mongolia, right? If you tilt your head a little to the side...
Here’s what you came for: the WAV downloads of the original audio, the version sampled from linear data, and the version sampled with nonlinear data. There are more of these in the OP which use less electrodes on less patients, you can find them quickly by using Control+F.
journals.plos.org
Hot