DanHandwerker

@DanHandwerker@neuromatch.social

Neuroscience & fMRI methodology researcher. Views are my own.

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

NicoleCRust, to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

Books written by anthropologists embedded with scientists?

I'm reading a book about an anthropologist who embedded with psychiatrists for several years to figure out how they are trained an what they think. Here's a great quote:

"Sometimes they talk about mental anguish as if it were cardiac disease: you treat it with medication, rest, and advice about the right way to eat and live. A person who has had a heart attack will never be the same—he will be always a person who has been very seriously ill—but he is not his heart attack. His heart attack is in the body, not the mind. When psychiatrists talk in this manner, psychosis and depression become likewise written on the body ... Sometimes, though, psychiatrists talk about distress as something much more complicated, something that involves the kind of person you are: your intentions, your loves and hates, your messy, complicated past ... From this vantage point, mental illness is in your mind and in your emotional reactions to other people. It is your “you.”

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/104443/of-two-minds-by-t-m-luhrmann/

In it, Luhrmann references another book in which an anthropologist embedded with nuclear weapons researchers:

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520213739/nuclear-rites

I'm so curious about this genre. Are there other books like it that you know and would recommend?

DanHandwerker,

@NicoleCRust Sociologist, but similar idea: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo3615501.html

DanHandwerker, to random

I have just been notified by @moderation that a toot that justifies the massacre of Israeli civilians does not violate the server's code of conduct. As a member of this cooperatively governed instance, I propose we change the https://wiki.neuromatch.io/Code_of_Conduct to include under "Unacceptable behavior": "Threats or justifications of violence against civilian populations"

timnitGebru, to random
@timnitGebru@dair-community.social avatar

Someone on here reported my toot here about Israel being an apartheid state to the admins of this instance, which include me. You don't like facts?

DanHandwerker,

@timnitGebru Maybe others reported you too, but I did report. I did not report you over using the word "apartheid" nor your other toots talking about Israeli violence. I reported because you wrote "The audacity to call this “unprovoked.”" In what other context would it be ok to say someone was "provoked" to rape and massacre people?

NicoleCRust, to random
@NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social avatar

How do we support the Katalin Karikó's?

There's a lot of reasonable outrage today around how Katalin Karikó was treated throughout her career (full disclosure: by my employer, UPenn). Obviously a number of someones made a huge mistake by not recognizing the brilliance and potential of her work - no question there!

What I've been thinking about and I'd love to get some scenius input on: how could we, as an academic community, do better?

Here's one summary of what happened:
https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-covid-vaccine-mrna-kariko-demoted-biontech-pfizer/

Taking seriously the notion that 1) we want to support the Katalin Karikó's, 2) high-risk, high-reward research takes time, and 3) everyone needs to go through a job evaluation at some point, here are a few ideas:

*) Better support to help geniuses communicate (and fund) their ideas.
*) More funding for high-risk, high-reward projects
*) A longer evaluation period for individuals engaged in high-risk/high-reward research

What would you add/change?

DanHandwerker, (edited )

@NicoleCRust Two possibly contradictory things: 1. More stable research jobs where people won't get fired for not getting grants (hard money). 2. More grant funding.

I don't think the issue is specifically about funding high-risk, high-reward. It's that we have little clue what research will be high reward and the more research that's funded the more likely some will lead to major discoveries.

The trouble is that increases in overall grant funding leads to places like UPenn creating more soft-money positions. A big Q for me is how to give universities an incentive to internally support more stable jobs.

eurunuela, to random

I am experiencing a decline in neuroimaging, productivity, and note-taking content on my Twitter feed.

It feels like my main interests aren't represented anymore.

Any recommendations for accounts to follow here on Mastodon that focus on these topics?

DanHandwerker,

@eurunuela I'm also starting to see groups like @neurobuzz (I joined) and @academicchatter (haven't yet joined) which are designed to boost within-topic posts that are shared with them.

Private
DanHandwerker,

@danai @academicchatter Going to differ from others and say that a trend does support your claim, but needs to be presented in a transparent manner. Saying "supports" with a small "p=0.2" in the corner of a figure isn't transparent, but saying there's a "non-significant trend in the same direction as the claim" is ok.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37116766/ is a good article that focuses on statistical & scientific issues of not presenting results just because they don't cross an arbitrary statistical threshold.

With all of the above said, i think this rests on how central this supplemental figure is to the core message. If the core findings are more statistically robust & this supplemental figure adds some context, my above is fine. If the core findings rest on this being significant then I'd be a less forgiving reviewer.

DanHandwerker, to random

I'm looking forward to participating in an #OHBM #OHBM2023 education session on "Making Quality Control Part of Your Analysis: Learning with the FMRI Open QC Project" The detailed schedule isn't in the official program, but you can find it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1scHKmypO38XYDqUPQoCMjYini1McKFJqIt5dZiTVkCk/edit?usp=sharing Thank you to @JosetAEtzel and @afni_pt for organizing and inviting me to present.

DanHandwerker,

@JosetAEtzel @afni_pt I was worried about who would actually want to spend a day at #OHBM2023 talkng about quality control, but it turns out 40+ people spend the entire day in the session. Many of the presentations were based on this special issue, but the talks and discussions went help beyond. Hoping the attendees and speakers keep building on the ideas and discussions from the session. https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/33922/demonstrating-quality-control-qc-procedures-in-fmri

DanHandwerker, to random

Enjoyed contributing to this one. It's a good primer on manifold learning tools with a head-to-head comparison of how some perform on fMRI time-varying functional connectivity. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.14.523992v1

DanHandwerker,

Our primer on manifold learning tools with a performance comparision using fMRI time-varying functional connectivity is now published! https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1134012

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