There are so many different types of researchers. Weather researchers, climate researchers, brain researchers. And within those categories, the nuances (like memory researchers).
When someone says they are an X researcher, what does that imply to you? In other words, what qualifies? Does it just imply that they are curious about X? Or perhaps that they know a bit more about it - perhaps they've mastered some scholarly literature or they've done at least one experiment? Or maybe even published a paper in a peer reviewed journal? Or maybe even more - perhaps they have a body of work on the topic; maybe they even run a lab (and have grants to support X research).
On one hand, no one should gate keep curiosity! On the other, certain terms imply knowledge and qualifications. I'm a "researcher". But just because I know a lot about memory doesn't automatically mean that people should listen to me about climate or economics. And I once read a very good book about ecosystems, but I don't think that means I should quality as an ecosystem researcher. So what, then, might instead?
@analog_ashley
Great point! The field has built things up to require some bravado to declare "Yes, I'm computational". What qualifies? Is y=mx+b enough? Does x need to be a vector? Or do you need to be able to define what a "Jacobian" is?
Some of my best computational insights have been of the form: if you and and subtract and apply a threshold, then ....
@APBBlue
Solidarity. My sense there is that some of us are open to reading glasses when 14 pt font menus are a normal distance from our face whereas others of us won’t give in if there’s any arm length distance we can still read a menu. If you look around at a restaurant, the more sensible among us have glasses on. The less sensible … (just look; it’s amusing!)
Just got chased out of a lab by a PI while doing a Union walkthrough. I feel bad for people in labs like that man, for your boss to be so tightly hovering over you and actively hostile to your rights as a worker must suck a lot.
My neighbors are singing Bohemian rhapsody next door and none of them are even close to being on pitch. Like if I focus on just their voices and not the melody they're truly random pitches in like a 4 semitone range. I genuinely dont know what the perceptual experience of being tone deaf is like. To me when im singing, esp if im following a recording, if im off pitch it just sounds like im too low or too high and I go up or down or jump an octave until im not. I dont claim to be a good singer but I can carry a tune, and it seems to be more of a binary can/can't than I would expect of a skill.
I can "dance" and follow a rhythm and learn steps, but I am really really bad at it, so someone who is great at dancing probably thinks something similar "I just know my body is in the wrong shape and I change it until its not." But it feels different to me bc the dancers I know have still had to do exhaustive practice to learn their dances, but singing on pitch (not singing "well," I know singers practice too) is effortless to me (and I imagine other people who can keep a tune).
What does it feel and sound like to be singing along to something and just not know how to sing the same notes? Does it sound like youre singing correctly? Or is it like not being sure how to change your voice to match? Like I can hear an accent and not know how to adjust my articulators to match it, and theres also a varying level of awareness when someone has a really bad fake accent.
I also wanna be clear most of the time singing off key doesnt bother me in the slightest. The ppl I have been close enough to that are tone deaf that theyve been willing to talk to me about it describe a great deal of shame, and so singing for them is painful and embarassing, so the last thing I would want to do is tell someone not to sing bc they cant hear the pitch. I am v much a sonophile generalist in that I just love sounds as a whole, like how camp problematizes "good" and "bad" art, I love me some noise and human energy. Shanties are some of my favorite forms of music because they are often like "just belt it out there and who cares how close you are".
Many know about amyloid, the gene APP and its relationship to Alzheimer's. But how many know the backstory? It all began with a letter from Carol Jennings to John Hardy .... Wonderful tribute and retelling here in @thetransmitter.
Carol's family is among those with a type of rare genetic mutation that, if inherited, determines that an individual will develop Alzheimer's with near certainty. This is only true for ~1% of all individuals with Alzheimer's (more here: https://dian.wustl.edu/). For this group, there is very little question about the science. But tragically, we still don't have a cure for them.
But what I expect you are hinting at is also true: for the 99% of other individuals with Alzheimer's, what triggers it, and the role that amyloid plays in that, is a lot less clear. In some of those individuals, genetics leads to higher risk. For others, no genetic links have been found.
I’m looking to compile a big pile of IRL books for summer beach reading.
Big fan of scifi, specfic, murder mysteries. Strong female characters = bonus points. Can’t deal with darkness. Nothing high brow or tedious. Nonfiction lover but that list is already bursting at the seams.
I also love long series - 3 body problem, wheel of time, foundation … those waves all have good memories attached.
If that brings anything to mind, please send the rec!!