I’m not sure why there’s the need to rebrand confidence to the term dominance, but I generally agree with the author. With that being said, I’m not sure I fully understand what dominance means or where the data comes from. It feels like there might be some cherry-picking here, because upon reflection I think even many centrist dems do draw hard lines in the sand on certain issues. In general I agree with the praise for MLK and for being more uncompromising on the issues that matter, and I also agree strongly with how important a positive uplifting message (It’s how AOC and many of the true progressives got elected) is and how very few democrats actually execute on this.

Oh absolutely, just calling it out because the fact that it is erased is important. There are malicious actors at play, and we should recognize what’s happening.

but somehow we collectively keep forgetting about it.

I mean, it’s not an issue of forgetting, it’s actively erased.

Your first sentence was passive aggressive. You suggested that the person is not worthy to judge, based on your own judgement of the show, and you suggested that they don’t have a basis to form a judgement based on their lack of watch history. Here it is, for posterity-

You need to watch more shows if you think Fallout was worth awards.

Also, welcome to Beehaw! We tend to be a bit more hands on when it comes to moderation. A reminder to be nice is just a reminder. It’s not a warning. I’m not going to ban you. This is about setting the tone for discussion and helping ensure that posts don’t go off the rails or that fights don’t start. If that’s not your vibe, that’s okay too! You don’t have to participate here 💜

Being passive aggressive about taste of all things, is not nice. This is your reminder to be(e) nice on this instance.

Great thought process! Yes, fMRI imaging is very vulnerable to p-hacking, which is more or less what the dead fish paper is pointing out (even when properly calibrated, it’s a problem with how noisy the raw data is in the first place). By classifying broad patterns, however, you eliminate some of the noise that the dead fish paper is showing can be problematic by abstracting away from whether micro structures meet statistical probability for being activation and move that to the more macro. While the dead fish paper may have shown activity in specific areas, if you were then to look at activity across larger portions or the entire brain, you would detect no statistical difference with rest (or dead fish, in this case).

Furthermore, this study doesn’t stop there- it asks the question of whether these groupings tell us anything about these groups with regards to treatment. Each group is split up into subgroups based on treatment modality. These different treatments (therapy, drugs, etc.) are compared from group to group to see if any of these broad groupings by the fMRI machine make any kind of clinical sense. If the fMRI grouping was complete bogus and p-hacked, the treatment groups would show no difference between each other. This two step process ensures that bogus groups and groups which do not have any difference in clinical treatment outcomes are lost along the way via statistical rigor.

Completely agreed, which is why it’s promising that they’re looking for patterns rather than specific areas of activation and they are pairing up findings with treatment and using statistics to see if certain treatment modalities work better for certain broad patterns.

If you can’t show sympathy, are you different to him?

I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn’t deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that’s perfectly reasonable. I also think it’s fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.

I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I’m a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.

This is just a reminder to be nice on our instance - this could be read as hostile or not extending good faith to the other user.

In the future please put articles like this in politics.