Well, statistically the individuals most likely to frequent an alternative social media platform are those with a) the technical proficiency to do so, b) Weak social anchoring to the network effects of mainstream platforms, and/or b) people whose past social interactions have led them to no longer have access to those platforms, ergo by self-selection bias there’s a high probability of finding other high functioning individuals on the spectrum on this platform. Lemmy/Piefed’s primary use case is basically socially-awkward-networking.
I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It’s a shame kids aren’t taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
kids aren’t taught that at a young age because they can’t grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can’t either. it’s too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that’s why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there’s a third option. There’s a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there’s a complete absence. At least in any country I’m aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There’s nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Because adult science is complex and dull to people outside the field.
How do we know the makeup of the atmosphere of a planet in another solar system? That line on a graph is higher then the other one
Idk, that seems like that’d be interesting…
I am Autistic though
So are a lot of scientists.
Ditto
By a show of hands, how many here are autistic? Upvote = Yes, Downvote =No.
Well, statistically the individuals most likely to frequent an alternative social media platform are those with a) the technical proficiency to do so, b) Weak social anchoring to the network effects of mainstream platforms, and/or b) people whose past social interactions have led them to no longer have access to those platforms, ergo by self-selection bias there’s a high probability of finding other high functioning individuals on the spectrum on this platform. Lemmy/Piefed’s primary use case is basically socially-awkward-networking.
Upvote = Yes, Downvote = Yes, but in denial
What if you aren’t convinced one way or the other?
They can upvote your comment! It’s branching binaries, all the way down, until we reach enough possibilities!!
Or diagnosed?
…or mildly so. It’s an imperfect system with no fractional voting. It’s our burden to bare.
Relevant xkcd
Pretty much.
Just like most any difficult work that results mostly in knowledge, it takes self-satisfaction to get the “rewarding” part.
There’s nothing dull about seeing a spectrograph working.
Edit: also, how come you can’t find a real hologram displayed in a museum?
Watching a beige box seems kind of dull.
Did scientists figure out how to keep the beige box from turning into a yellow box?
Make the box transparent.
But seriously, all of those have older versions that don’t work as well but look absolutely cool.
If you’re gonna make it transparent, make it out of this:
I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It’s a shame kids aren’t taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
Says who?
Any study with a placebo or nocebo element.
Do we have data on people who understand the significance of peer reviewed research ignoring that research despite the understanding?
kids aren’t taught that at a young age because they can’t grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can’t either. it’s too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that’s why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there’s a third option. There’s a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there’s a complete absence. At least in any country I’m aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There’s nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
you have never been around children, have you?
If kid is capable of understanding basic scientific method at 8 years old, they can understand the basic structure of a hierarchy.
“X is more important than Y”
“Why sir”
“Because X uses the scientific method like we discussed in class last week and Y does not”
“What’s the scientific method again sir”
repeats for retention
that’s not how kids work. nor do most people.
Okay. I don’t agree with you, but that’s fine. We can disagree.
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.