TED book blames game and porn addiction for "the demise of guys"

mehgandavid · 1 day

Says the man who cites no direct evidence to support his point. Anecdotal and indirect relationships that you've personally witnessed don't count, sir. I heard his TED talk to. While it raises some interesting points, he hasn't done (or at least shown) any research that accounts for this. Maybe he's afraid it would scare away the sensationalist readers of CNN articles to give actual evidence.

mcvays · 5 days

There's a couple steps you should try here (you've probably already tried some of them). First, can you load a backup ROM and verify this is still a problem? If so, you might have a bad battery. If not, try a fresh wipe and re-install. If you still have a problem, wipe again and install a previous version of Slim. You can also try installing a different Kernel, such as Devil or Glitch.

mcvays · 6 days

Have you tried wiping the battery stats? I'm running Slim with no problems at the moment, but it's given me trouble in the past. Also, did you wipe the data and dalvik cache before flashing Slim? If not, you can run into some pretty big issues there too.

j-hump · 6 days

People do that on reddit sometimes. Just trying to give you some good news! I took the GRE when I applied to clinical programs because a few of them required it. The test is really just fact-based (as opposed to the multiple factors in the standard GRE) so if you remember most of what you learned in college you won't have any problems.

j-hump · 6 days

It's REALLY easy. It's primarily meant as a test to prove you understand basic concepts of psychology if you didn't major in the subject. Study the Kaplan book and maybe look through a text book for Psyc 101. You'll do fine!

jpark28 · 10 days

Having reported myself as a witness to an accident before, it's actually a huge pain. I didn't mind being late to work in order to give the police officer my information, but I DID mind being required to go to court and miss work/life in order to potentially be put on the stand. I was still willing to due my duty, but it certainly isn't easy on the person donating their time and effort to help the police work/innocent party.

stfuirl · 13 days

I find this incredibly exciting. Can't wait to give it a try when I get home from work today. Thanks!

stfuirl · 13 days

I love it when I return to reddit and find a bunch of great replies. Thanks for all the suggestions!

deinem · 14 days

"Demure" expression on the fire princess? It's literally a one-line smiley face. Some people really go out of there way to see what they want to see.

wickedcold · 17 days

It's also one reason why I sometimes regret having a road bike :(

saltingthatsnail · 20 days

Generally speaking, I tend to recommend this book to aspiring psychologists. It gives a general breakdown of various career paths and what a "day in the life" looks like.

As for school psychology, whether you like it depends on what you want to do. If your only prerequisite is being in a social environment, likely any field of psychology will be interesting in some way. If you like working with kids and have the patience to work with that sort of population for a career, then go for it!

rosscatrow · 21 days

Bought my last bike at CBC. Glad to see they're expanding! IMO those guys single-handedly started/revived the fixed-gear racing scene in RVA.

kimamourette · 23 days

Sure thing. If you check the sidebar, you can see that this subreddit focuses on scholarly writing, i.e., journal articles. You can also post about your own research or research questions. The article posted is a poorly written diatribe, citing no research, that proposes what I assume to be philosophical hogwash. I assume this because, as mentioned earlier, there is no research article posted or discussed in the link given.

kimamourette · 24 days

This doesn't seem academically focused at all. I'm sure the pop psychology fans in /r/psychology will love it though.

QueueNX · 29 days

IMO psychology probably has the most rigorous statistical analyses, given the difficulties in gathering purely objective data. The field is generally very good about showing sufficient reliability and validity in measures to justify conclusions drawn, and multi-report, multi-format, multi-time point data can make a very strong argument for any study.

On_Tuesday_Nights · 1 month

It's different for lent books. From my understanding they only show up on Kindle devices.

philipzimbardosex · 1 month

Good point. Conference presentations represent the cutting edge of research, but they can have massive flaws that might not make them publishable.

philipzimbardosex · 1 month

They didn't give a link to an article, otherwise I would have updated my thoughts on the methodological rigor. Or are you talking about something else? I'm not aware of anyone in my field publishing "research reports."

philipzimbardosex · 1 month

This is why people don't take psychologists seriously. They conducted a correlational study that doesn't take into account individual variables, admits that there's already a third variable at play (more senior students are more likely to do this), doesn't actually account for water consumed (which is the assumption they make for their entire paper), and only says they "accounted" for the students' marks. Did they control for them in a multiple regression? Did they glance at grades afterword and make post hoc conclusions? No explanation is given. To top it all off, they conducted a correlational study and drew causal conclusions.... any psychologist would be taught to avoid this in stats 101.

bigDB · 1 month

Apparently they put fresh fertilizer down across the entire Intervale. Somehow that smell has traveled for miles.

cardboardjames · 1 month

Can't wait to see what research they do from this research (yo dawg...). I would be particularly interested in analyses comparing reproducibility across different journals. Everyone in the field knows that some journals are of a higher "tier" than others, and each has their own standards for acceptance. My research questions:

Are studies in higher tier journals (impact factor 1+ standard deviation above the mean) significantly more likely to be reproduced than lower tier journals (impact factor -1 standard deviation below the mean)? How does this distribution look across all journals?
Does reproducibility significantly differ across psychological domains of research (social, developmental, neurobehavioral, etc)?
Is there an interaction between journal tier and popularity of the research group that predicts reproducibility? That is, my guess is more famous researchers (Bem is a good example) will get away with less-reproducible studies in higher tier journals. This one is a bit more nebulous because someone would have to operationalize lab "popularity." Everyone knows who the famous researchers are in their field, but this would have to be quantified (number of publications accepted doesn't really get at this).

IThinkitsFunny · 1 month

I think people in r/psychology, perhaps because most of them learn about it from a textbook or pop culture, don't really understand how non-glamorous research is. Most of us spend our days gathering hours of data, just to add an article finding that one little variable moderated a predictive pathway between two other variables. Very few people are proposing grandiose theories that can be easily verified (or vilified). As such, there isn't as much attachment to those incremental findings we add to the research pile. Yes, there certainly are theorists who get attached to their large model, primarily because they spent decades validating it through their own line of research. I think it would be hard for anyone to admit that the past 20 years of their life were wrong, if that scenario were to occur. If you can find me any scientist that would do that easily, regardless of what domain (psychology, biology, chemistry, etc) of research, I would like to meet them.

stfuirl

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login