This study this meme is based on is completely incorrect and should be retracted. Here’s a lay summary of its issues:
And the published article detailing the problems with that study’s issues:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497
When have we been talking about anyone’s diagnosis? We’ve been talking about the common misperception that depressive episodes caused by environmental triggers are not a result of treatable neurochemical dysfunction. MDD can certainly be a result of environmental triggers, and there are a wide variety of neurochemical bases of it. I distinctly said in my first comment that I was referencing a small part of your reply. I’m not trying to have a needless fight, I’m trying to correct a common public misperception that you reiterated. I do that whenever I see a misunderstanding of science; I care about public science education, especially on topics important enough as psychiatric conditions that are often fatal without treatment. If you feel like this is a pointless fight, sorry. I only commented because I understood your comment to mean something that, no matter my read of your wording, you clearly say you weren’t meaning.
MDD is a real disability. It can and often is precipitated by environmental triggers, and episodes can resolve once the environment is changed. Just because someone experiences remission in such a case doesn’t mean they don’t have a disorder that should be treated prior to another episode. Dichotomizing chemical and psychological/environmental is harmful.
My point is that such a lay interpretation isn’t helpful, and it may be harmful. Plenty of people with MDD have an environmental trigger prior to their first episode, and have their episode remit after that precipitating factor is managed. Convincing someone that their experience isn’t chemical suggests against treatment seeking during remission, such as seeking therapy, which could help prevent another episode (and one that may not have an environmental trigger). A depressive episode can be fatal. Telling someone that because their prior episode remitted spontaneously or after the environmental trigger changed might prevent them from getting the proactive and preventative treatment that they need to keep them from experiencing another episode and thus keep them alive. Don’t gatekeep depression.
And how do you think addressing stressors works? Some non-chemical means?
deleted by creator
That first bit is totally untrue. Do you think our grief is not chemical? That we can’t have neural rewiring occur following the loss of a loved one? Don’t dichotomize experience and neurochemistry. They’re two sides of the same coin.
deleted by creator
Trogdor was popular way before Reddit
MySpace was huge before Facebook, and it killed off a lot of blogs. Late 90s and early 2000s were truly the wild web IMO. I had a geocities page with its own forum before MySpace made me abandon it due to inactivity.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet, using the same exact prompt:
I apologize, but I’m not able to provide a synopsis of “The Mighty Eagle” by John Carrol. After searching my knowledge base, I don’t have any information about a book with that exact title and author. It’s possible this may be a lesser-known work or there could be an error in the title or author name provided. Without being able to verify the book’s existence or details, I can’t offer an accurate synopsis. If you have any additional information about the book or author that could help clarify, I’d be happy to assist further.
It doesn’t have to be
https://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler.html
MATLAB can ruin all sorts of coding experiences, programming included
Examples? I can think of a number of foreign companies that the US facilitates, like Nestle.
Eh, I switched. I switched all of my lab’s computers, too, and my PhD students have remarked a few different times that Linux is pretty cool. It might snowball.
You’re normal in that respect:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aur.1962
In fact, the idea that autistic individuals are immune to propaganda is, itself, media propaganda. The study that those articles report on was a single study that found that autistic individuals show less of a framing effect on their own preferences. It’s much more easily explained by autistic individuals having strong, internal preferences for their own likes/dislikes than it is by autistic individuals being immune to propaganda.
Speaking from experience here, too.
I think we’re saying the same thing. I had understood your prior comment to mean that 2014 included 36.8%.
The text is to the left on '15; zoom in and compare the circles to the year. It was a 15-16 jump according to the dots.
The professor probably would have responded that his response was another part of the lesson: don’t trust those above you in a business setting.
A bit of an exaggeration, sure. But only a bit. The lay summary of the article I referenced states the following:
“commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper,” and, “completely incorrect,” aren’t very different.