|
StrixNebulosa posted:Gideon the Ninth by Tamsyn Muir! I feel it’s a big sacrifice to not have the chapter icons and physically read this one.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Agent355 posted:I'm maxed out on audible credits this month. Anybody listen to any cool books on tape lately? Or just have a cool book? If I don't use the credit I lose it and I'm not really hankering for anything in particular. I recently relistened to Oryx and Crake and it's really good. I wonder if the sequels are good, I'm scared to try because the book is self-contained and like I said, so so good. Existentially sad though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:I recently relistened to Oryx and Crake and it's really good. I wonder if the sequels are good, I'm scared to try because the book is self-contained and like I said, so so good. Existentially sad though. The Year of the Flood isn't really a sequel so much as a... Sidequel? It's a separate story in the same universe and they converge at some point. Then Maddaddam is the 3rd one. I really enjoyed all 3, I should do a reread actually, it's been awhile. Has anyone else read "This is How it Always Is"? I just finished it for my book club and I have a lot of competing feelings. I'd still recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
looking for icelandic/scandinavian dark crime thrillers
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
An Apple A Gay posted:looking for icelandic/scandinavian dark crime thrillers The Millenium Trilogy (or whatever numbet they are up to posthumously).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
An Apple A Gay posted:looking for icelandic/scandinavian dark crime thrillers Not Iceland but "The Girl in the Ice" by the Hammers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Also Jörn Lier Horst.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
cool thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
An Apple A Gay posted:looking for icelandic/scandinavian dark crime thrillers Check out Jo Nesbo and Jussi Adler-Olsen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
I'm looking for a good rec for a book about the dotcom crash. Had my interest peaked after learning about stuff like beenz and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
I have no recommendation but I miss the pets.com puppet
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
jeeves...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Looking for in-depth books about human sexuality and gender, something non-fiction like the Kinsey Reports but more recent, any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
goose willis posted:Looking for in-depth books about human sexuality and gender, something non-fiction like the Kinsey Reports but more recent, any suggestions? Come As You Are is a very good book on the psychology and sociology of women’s desire based on current research, but the audience is very much lay people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
goose willis posted:Looking for in-depth books about human sexuality and gender, something non-fiction like the Kinsey Reports but more recent, any suggestions? The Human Project, forget the author.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
whatever you read, remember that about 64% of it is completely made up nonsense based on flawed studies that won't replicate. at 36% replication, this gives the contemporary social sciences significantly worse explanatory and predictive power than tarot cards
chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:whatever you read, remember that about 64% of it is completely made up nonsense based on flawed studies that won't replicate. at 36% replication, this gives the contemporary social sciences significantly worse explanatory and predictive power than tarot cards yabut try to get a grant for reading cards
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
speaking of - we all presumably know the stanford prison experiment was faked, but here's a new article about how another of the most famous psychiatric studies was also faked another very famous one about how women perform better in blind auditions than they do when the evaluators know they're a woman also just failed to replicate a week or so ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:speaking of - we all presumably know the stanford prison experiment was faked, but here's a new article about how another of the most famous psychiatric studies was also faked Yes, clearly the whole field of social science, from clinical psychology to structuralism, is a sham. This proves it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Only 64%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Yes, clearly the whole field of social science, from clinical psychology to structuralism, is a sham. This proves it! mostly yeah. the replication crisis is getting worse, not better, and much of that is due to deep structural flaws in the social sciences as a whole, leaving aside the fact that a growing number of foundational studies with serious impacts on public policy are being unmasked as total frauds. if half of your studies at most can be replicated, that's not a science, that's rune-casting
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
If it requires experiment, it's not a real science. Calculation should suffice
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:mostly yeah. the replication crisis is getting worse, not better, and much of that is due to deep structural flaws in the social sciences as a whole, leaving aside the fact that a growing number of foundational studies with serious impacts on public policy are being unmasked as total frauds. if half of your studies at most can be replicated, that's not a science, that's rune-casting This is just a silly claim. “Social science” is not some monolithic field based only on replicable studies. You’re talking about fields like anthropology, education, linguistics, and so on. This goes all the way up and out to economics and even some branches of philosophy. Many of these fields are “scientific” in the tools and methods of thinking and analyses, not in the way that their findings meet the standard of rigor that, say, physics meets. Of course an anthropological study is not going to be replicable, its results are based on a crazy web of relationships between the researcher(s) and the subject(s). That doesn’t mean that its conclusions can’t be valuable or scientific, just that we have to be careful about generalizing those conclusions. Right now you’re like someone pointing to thalidomide babies and screaming “animal models! In MICE!” and saying that that disproves the entire field of biology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
tuyop posted:This is just a silly claim. “Social science” is not some monolithic field based only on replicable studies. pretty clearly talking about psychology and sociology here e: although since you mention economics, that's having it's own smaller replication crisis
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:pretty clearly talking about psychology and sociology here
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Just so everyone knows, Chernobyl kinsman does this whole ‘big claim based on a half assed understanding of a real problem’ in d&d threads too. His name is synonymous with ‘a really stupid point’ in the Space thread. So don’t get too worked up trying to explain things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Just so everyone knows, Chernobyl kinsman does this whole ‘big claim based on a half assed understanding of a real problem’ in d&d threads too. His name is synonymous with ‘a really stupid point’ in the Space thread. So don’t get too worked up trying to explain things. i haven't posted in d&d in literal years, never posted there often, and have literally never posted in or read the space thread lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
I think he might have mixed you up with Owlofcreamcheese.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
there are many aggravating jackasses on thsi forum so its an easy mistake to make
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
My bad, it was kerning chameleon. Still, you've got an incredibly stupid take here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
"given that between half of and 2/3rds of all studies fail to replicate, the fields based in large degree on those studies are borderline useless and their consenses should be treated with extreme skepticism" is pretty commonsensical i think
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:"given that between half of and 2/3rds of all studies fail to replicate, the fields based in large degree on those studies are borderline useless and their consenses should be treated with extreme skepticism" is pretty commonsensical i think If that had been all you'd said, you'd be correct - the field of Psychology has a lot of issues in the way its experiments are done. Instead, you went on to them claim that 'all of social science is crap and shouldn't be used' also you brought it up, randomly, because of a request for a book on human sexuality in a sociological context. Reading the common prevailing research is still useful, even if there are some questions about the validity and reproducibility of said research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:If that had been all you'd said, you'd be correct - the field of Psychology has a lot of issues in the way its experiments are done. Instead, you went on to them claim that 'all of social science is crap and shouldn't be used' also you brought it up, randomly, because of a request for a book on human sexuality in a sociological context. Reading the common prevailing research is still useful, even if there are some questions about the validity and reproducibility of said research. chernobyl kinsman posted:pretty clearly talking about psychology and sociology here and there aren't "some questions" about validity and reproducibility dude, that's is an attempt at minimizing the severity of the situation. i didnt say "dont read any research", i said "remember that only about a third of what you're reading can be reasonably expected to have any grounding in reality" also not sure why talking about psychology and sociology in response to a request for a book abotu psychology and sociology is "random" to you but im beginning to think you didnt actually read any of these posts except maybe the last one
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:also you brought it up, randomly, because of a request for a book on human sexuality in a sociological context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Eh, I just don’t feel you can make the claim that the specific book suggested is only 1/3 valid because psychology, as a whole, has a problem with reproducibility. And it feels a bit of an ‘I am very smart’ reply to someone’s request for a book to read. Plus you said ‘social sciences as a whole’ before backpedaling after being called out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
i was being slightly flippant, that may have gotten past you, but there's no reason to believe a book on a particular subsection of psychology and sociology would be any more reliable than those fields in general (i.e. not at all)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
This is just gonna be a weird slap fight, so sure man, ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:i was being slightly flippant, that may have gotten past you, but there's no reason to believe a book on a particular subsection of psychology and sociology would be any more reliable than those fields in general (i.e. not at all) I’m also not sure if the other books recommended do this, but Come As You Are explicitly reviews and then calls out how psych experiments have been used to pathologize and shame women, while also being generally flawed science. For instance: quote:This is what happened to psychotherapist Helen Singer Kaplan. Reviewing treatment failures among her own and her colleagues’ patients, she found that the clients with the least successful outcomes were those who lacked interest in sex. Kaplan realized something important was entirely missing from the four-phase model: desire. The entire concept of sexual desire was utterly missing from the dominant theory of human sexual response. It seems like a glaring oversight in retrospect, but of course it was missing—people who come to a laboratory to masturbate for science don’t have to want sex before they begin; they just have to get aroused for the purpose of the experiment. So Kaplan took the four-phase model out of the laboratory and adapted it to the lived experience of her clients. Her “triphasic” model of the sexual response cycle begins with desire, which she conceptualized as “interest in” or “appetite for” sex, much like hunger or thirst. The second phase is arousal, which combines excitement and plateau into one phase, and the third phase is orgasm. The paragraphs didn’t parse into the quote but still. So the conclusion you’re coming to, that these books can contain only 36% valuable information (whatever that means), really generalizes a scientist or researcher’s ability to explain the useful conclusions of flawed research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I’m also not sure if the other books recommended do this, but Come As You Are explicitly reviews and then calls out how psych experiments have been used to pathologize and shame women, while also being generally flawed science. For instance: thats great but those arent the only studies that are totally full of poo poo, and pretending that most flawed (which is a polite way of saying wrong) studies produce useful results once they're recognized as such is an ostrich's response to reality: namely, they're not recognized as such, and their fictitious results inform future studies and theories (which are horseshit in their turn) and public policy, causing active detriment to both individuals and society, to say nothing of the field as a whole. and this isn't some patriarchal past phenomenon: the research being done right now, by woke scientists, is failing to replicate. e: this also hinges on two assumptions: 1) that the "useful conclusions of flawed research" will not themselves be horseshit, which is statistically unlikely, and 2) that studies with 'bad' ideology (here, those that shame women) are worse or more likely to be wrong than those with 'good' ideology. this is not only untrue but probably the opposite of truth, since we are historically and objectively less likely to question results that confirm our ideological biases chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:thats great but those arent the only studies that are totally full of poo poo, and pretending that most flawed (which is a polite way of saying wrong) studies produce useful results once they're recognized as such is an ostrich's response to reality: namely, they're not recognized as such, and their fictitious results inform future studies and theories (which are horseshit in their turn) and public policy, causing active detriment to both individuals and society, to say nothing of the field as a whole. and this isn't some patriarchal past phenomenon: the research being done right now, by woke scientists, is failing to replicate. Ah so you believe that anti-racism and feminism are ideologies rather than the state of the art resulting from rigorous work in the social sciences (informed in part by activism, of course). Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 02:46
|
|