@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

NicoleCRust

@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social

Professor (UPenn). Brain researcher. Author (nonfiction). Advocate for community based progress & collective intelligence.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

helenajambor, to datascience
@helenajambor@mastodon.social avatar

Everyone, drop what you are doing - SPURIOUS CORRELATION now has a companion site, SPURIOUS SCHOLAR - that WRITES AN ACADEMIC PAPER based on the spurious correlation! Because "if p < 0.05, why not publish?" 😂

https://tylervigen.com/spurious-scholar

publishing

Al academic paper (Because p < 0.01) - "The Elijah Wood Effect: A Cinematic Correlation to Orderly Occupation in Oklahoma" Reminder: This paper is Al-generated. Not reall Show prompt used to generate this paper

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@helenajambor
Brilliant!!

brembs, to random
@brembs@mastodon.social avatar

Compare what experts like @alexh

https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2024/03/28/gates-foundation-and-me-mandate-preprints-support-peer-review-services-outside-of-big-publishers/

or @Luke_Drury

https://council.science/current/blog/the-open-access-rising-tide-gates-foundation-ends-support-to-article-processing-charges/

think of the new Gates' policy ending the support of journal-based academic publishing, with a news-type article in an academic journal:

https://www.science.org/content/article/bold-bid-avoid-open-access-fees-gates-foundation-says-grantees-must-post-preprints

That comparison should tell you all you need to know about which organizations are on the side of scholarship, and which are its adversaries.

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@brembs @alexh @Luke_Drury
Which I can’t even read b/c I ran out free articles 😂!!

BayesForDays, to random
@BayesForDays@lingo.lol avatar

it's only not creepy when rich people bury dead people in their yards

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@BayesForDays
Trying to parse that at the end of an exceedingly long day (and I thank you for that momentary distraction!). Should I infer that it is creepy when they aren't rich? Or when they don't bury? Or when they do so but in someone else's yard? Or are all of these inferences in the class of counterfactual errors?! Dr. Cass, please pray tell ....

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@BayesForDays
I love it. I'll think about it all night. Especially at 2am if I can't sleep.

I live in Philly, in a really old house. We don't exactly have a yard, but I'll bet ...

Not to mention that Edgar Alan Poe's house is nearby. I hear there's a cat under those floor boards ....

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@jonny @BayesForDays
Absolutely. That’s only fair.

tdverstynen, to random
@tdverstynen@neuromatch.social avatar

Today I discovered that there are certain "high profile" professors who are regularly courted for (and strategically accept) coauthorship on papers, with minimal effort or work, solely to increase the likelihood that the paper will be accepted at a top tier journal.

This is basically the Trump business model applied to science.

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@tdverstynen
Seriously? Sigh.

jonny, to random
@jonny@neuromatch.social avatar

Is there like a standard process for like "hey I noticed you made exactly the same argument as me using the same primary refs without citing me after we talked about this a bunch of times, would you mind adding a citation"

I dont like to think I "own" any ideas, and obviously it could be coincidence from working in the same space, but it does get tiring because it happens to me all the time, I think partially bc I self publish and institutionally brainwashed ppl dont think that "counts," and it would be nice to feel respected by people I respect.

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@jonny @chrisXrodgers
That sucks. I’m really sorry.

And let’s talk.

First, about the notion that nothing @jonny does is very unique. Ummm …I respectfully disagree. Consider that SFN poster and everything associated. I dare you to point to a second like it. (And many of us admire that, a lot). Understood that this particular issue might be a bit different. Just saying …

Second, I’m authentically sad that this is happening, given how enthusiastically you fight for principles in such an open way.

So maybe a few more of us can work in a legit @jonny citation into our next paper to make the (screaming) universe a bit more right.

NicoleCRust, to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

Did you ever feel that the universe was screaming at you to not do (or do) something? If so, did you listen?

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@kh_sivesind
Thank you for this. I didn’t know the story behind it.

jpeelle, to random
@jpeelle@neuromatch.social avatar

Follow these two easy steps to get rich

  1. Offer a babysitting service that’s exclusively between dinner and story time

  2. Think of a big number and then charge triple that

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@jpeelle
Yes !!!!

NicoleCRust, to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

Nope. Delete. Sticking to the policy. If Nicole can’t say something nice, Nicole just doesn’t …

(Of course, you do you!)

sfmatheson, to Neuroscience
@sfmatheson@fediscience.org avatar

This is gold:

"Being scientific is hard for human brains, but as an adversarial collaboration on a massive scale, science is our only method for collectively separating how we want things to be from how they are."

https://www.thetransmitter.org/fmri/breaking-down-the-winners-curse-lessons-from-brain-wide-association-studies/




NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@sfmatheson
Absolutely. Epistemic humility as a virtue (not a vice). 👏👏👏

seeingwithsound, to random
@seeingwithsound@mas.to avatar

This brain implant is made to treat mental health problems https://wired.me/technology/brain-implant-motif/

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@seeingwithsound
Lot to unpack there. Curious to know: I presume that this is DLPFC. Given that we can stimulate that region noninvasively (rTMS), what justifies removing skull to implant. Do you know?

klauspforr, to random German
@klauspforr@sciences.social avatar

Almost unbelievable. There is neurological condition which makes people see faces look like demons https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-extremely-rare-neurological-condition-makes-faces-appear-distorted-or-like-a-demon-180984015/

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@benjamingeer @klauspforr
Fascinating, for sure. Jody Culham's group at Wash U studies the differences between pictures vs real life. (eg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33775583/). But I'm not aware of anything face-specific.

Case studies like these are valuable, because they can't shed insights into things we've never even thought to think before.

Thanks for tagging me on this one!

NicoleCRust, to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

Are mental disorders brain disorders? Youtube video of the excellent salon organized by @PessoaBrain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFiJIaE77aw

Anneli Jefferson: 8:30
@awaisaftab: 31:00
me: 53:30
Alexey Tolchinsky: 1:04
@eikofried 1:13
With discussion to follow

(If you want the TL;DR: in my few minutes, I try to summarize the diversity of positions in a way anyone can understand; the other speakers do a great job deep diving and advocating for those positions).

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@pinecone
Thanks for that insight!

@PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried

DrYohanJohn, to random
@DrYohanJohn@fediscience.org avatar

How seriously should we take "levels" of reality? I mean the parcellation of the universe into, say, the particle level, the chemical level, the cellular level, the organism, individual level, the social/ecological level etc?

Do levels interpenetrate?

Are these metaphysical matters or just pragmatic ones?

Stimulated by the great session on mental disorders just completed, hosted by @PessoaBrain , featuring Anneli Jefferson, @awaisaftab , @NicoleCRust , Alexey Tolchinky & @eikofried

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@DrYohanJohn @PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried

Great question! Curious: @DrYohanJohn, what do you think?

As discussed in that wonderful salon, there’s a parallel conversation to be had around causality at abstract, nonphysical levels (eg insomnia “causes” fatigue). Many seem to be ready to buy into the idea that we can figure out causality purely at that level. The subtext is something along the lines of: it’s the level of emergent properties. I’m less sure, particularly when interactions become complicated. It certainly strikes me that we should not automatically port our concepts of causality from the physical to nonphysical without some thoughtfulness.

NicoleCRust, (edited )
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@dcm

I mean they are psychological concepts. The research agenda (called network theory) proposes to investigate them independent of their biological correlates, eg: "In this approach, mental disorders arise from direct interactions between symptoms."

"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20375

Here's a concrete example:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1312114110

It models mood state as the attractor state of a system defined by the interaction between 4 coupled differential equations for: cheerfulness, contentness, sadness, and anxiousness.

That, I presume, assumes that these 4 different emotions are in fact 4 different things (eg that cheerfulness and sadness are not one continuous axis).

@DrYohanJohn @PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@dcm @DrYohanJohn @PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried
Correct and important point: the proposal is not that some force in the universe other than the brain that mediates and produces the mind (like a nonmaterial soul). Rather, the proposal is that the mind can be understood at an abstract level.

I worry that we're getting into some (perhaps nonuseful) philosophical weeds here when we say that a neuron is not a physical concept. A neuron is physical. I can touch one. I can't touch insomnia in the same way.

Don't get me wrong: I work at the level of "algorithm" to understanding how "information" is transformed as it propagates from one brain are to the next. That's also not physical. (Hence my interest).

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@dcm @DrYohanJohn @PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried

All appreciated (authentically).

As a practicing neuroscientist, I want to talk about the difference between causal chains in the brain vs the mind, like in the "insomnia causes fatigue" example. I suspect that anyone reasonably smart can understand what I'm talking about when I say, "while we all accept that statement, there isn't actually a physical thing in the world, insomnia, that causes a physical thing in the world, fatigue. Rather, that causal chain is mediated via physical events that happen in the brain: a lack of sleep leads to the brain state that corresponds to the mind state of fatigue"

I think it's important that we talk about these things in ways that everyone can easily grasp (so no mumbo-jumbo-jargon). But I don't want to mislead either. Do you have suggestions about good words to talk about this particular distinction? (No -ologies or -isms allowed 😉​).

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@dcm

Hmmm. Fascinating. Thanks for engaging with this. It's something I've authentically been trying to wrap my head around: Why isn't the conversation around the topic "are psychiatric disorders brain disorders?" laid out in a clearer way? The concepts aren't so complicated. It's written about in a way that strikes me (a brain researcher) as unnecessarily befuddling. What's that about? Is it differences in culture? Jargon? Something else?

From this conversation, I wonder if there's a difference in style of approach here.

I feel strongly that a huge factor holding back progress is the absence of clear-speak (aka I don't even know that You (grand, not you per se) are saying something interesting because you've hidden bits I can connect with behind such a jargony curtain).

I'm guessing that any general entry point related to brains and minds will presuppose some debatable ontology (agree?). I'm happy to take that hit. And from there, demonstrate that we should not think about it like "that" but instead like "this" ... (which I think speaks to your disagreement with the statement?). I'm also all for discussions about what the best accessible descriptions might be.

If I understand you correctly, triggering a conversation from a point of debatable ontology is a bad idea. (Even if the consequence is that it won't have an accessible entry point).

Does that resonate with you as the trade-off here? Accessibility vs generalizability?

In any case, I am convinced that there is an important thing to be discussed here that informs how science is practiced, how ever we decide to enter the conversation (I suspect you are too?)

@DrYohanJohn @PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@DrYohanJohn

Absolutely - this is a crucial point that I've heard expressed by aficionados: behavioral therapy (including CBT and other forms) is the most precise instrument we have today for manipulating the brain (via learning). That's not to suggest that it works for everyone or that brain-based interventions can't also help. It's more a suggestion about how and why it works.

@PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@PessoaBrain
Absolutely!!

@DrYohanJohn @awaisaftab @eikofried

NicoleCRust, to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

How do you pack a 95K word (nonfiction) book into a 40 minute talk?

How many words are in 40 minutes? My estimate is 4-5K. That's ~20-fold compression. Something like half of 1 (of 10) chapters in the book.

Obviously you don't just read off the first half of the first chapter. But an outline of all of it is also super unsatisfying; it needs more depth than that. Clearly you present the central thesis and why it matters. But what to support it? This is a problem I've never encountered before. Not yet sure how to wrap my head around it.

Any advice? Any pointers to book talks you love?

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@DrYohanJohn
Thank you!!!

NicoleCRust, (edited ) to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

Another great @PessoaBrain salon: 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀?

Neuroscience & Philosophy Salon discussion with Anneli Jefferson & @awaisaftab, plus @eikofried, Alexey Tolchinsky & yours truly 😊​ chiming in.

Mar 21, 12pm US-east

Register here:
https://umd.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJ0vc-6hpjwoHt3QkJSC7gmndwYYUiaf5S2F#/registration

NicoleCRust,
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

@PessoaBrain @awaisaftab @eikofried
Reminder: happening tomorrow.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • ethstaker
  • DreamBathrooms
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • provamag3
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • normalnudes
  • khanakhh
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •