Everyone is prone to confirmation biases. They are an inherent part of our minds. It's important to recognize one's own biases and make decisions taking them into account.
No one is immune to confirmation bias. Even extremely intelligent people fall victim to it. That's why peer review is so important.
These two studies are consistent with what I have been thinking.
However, for the avoidance of confirmation bias, is there any similar study that arrives at a different conclusion?
From the article:
A meta-analysis of 41 studies recently published on the Social Science Research Network reached a similar conclusion: there was no difference in partisanship between liberals and conservatives.
Do we even have a hard measure of creativity?
Maybe they should reverse the cause and effect here. I think it's more likely that seeing and processing more information in an amount of time empowers an individual to be more creative. The "lightbulb" or "thunderstruck" moments tend to come from noticing something you hadn't caught onto before, or thinking about something in a different way than you had been.
When the article discussed uses of a brick, they were talking about a measure of divergent thinking which is related to creativity.
This is not how perception works, I can say this having studied it. This is also not the standing theory, or one I've ever heard used in Psychology, so don't refer to it as such.
Your perception is limited by attentional resources, not whether or not there is any thing of value to be seen, because that makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint. We are good at sifting through the unimportant to find something useful, but that doesn't man we only perceive that which is necessary. When we reach our attentional capacity for something certain things may be ignored so as to leave resources for perceiving what we are focused on, but that is not the same as only perceiving things we need.
since they didn't link to it
Question as a bipolar disorder sufferer who benefits heavily from a dual regimen of SSRIs and Seroquel: maybe we should consider the long term effects of cannabis causing patients to no longer use psychoactive anti-depressants? I'm totally pro legalization and think it could seriously help a lot of people, and am under no illusions about how bad some react to SSRIs. But this is similar to the worry some people have about the ketamine trials to treat suicidal idealation and the chronically depressed: if cannabis helps to cause short term relief from symptoms without having a huge effect on the underlying neurochemistry, it seems like it would be quite dangerous for a patient reacting decently well to common antidepressants to decide "hey might as well just stop taking these, here's the real answer". The trials ive seen the tend to make it a battle of short term effective treatment/long term issues of dosing and not knowing what the underlying neurological effects are, versuscommon short term side effects/long term stability on a very specific regimen.
And yes, I'm aware the neurology of things like pychiatric drugs is not perfectly understood and the mechanisms they're targeting aren't one hundred percent guarantees to treatment, but seeing as how that's likely true of cannabis as well it doesn't seem like a great counter argument.
Glad we're doing research on this. Sorely needed.
However, this study has a number of limitations. The most glaringly of which are: 1. It's a survey (not an intervention) 2. It was conducted online (significant selection bias) 3. It was restricted to New England
Nevertheless, step in the right direction. We need to be doing multiple DBRCT across the nation, across groups, and across medical issues. Given the widespread use and assumption it is a panacea we need to research it like one so we know where it is ACTUALLY effective and efficacious. It's way past time.
Interesting stuff. We've known for a few years that increased marijuana use can decrease opioid use, but it's great to see that this applies to decreased use of other substances as well, particularly alcohol. At first, I suspected that there was an effect similar to "ibogaine," which is a psychedelic drug that is used (mostly in countries other than the US due to its illegality) to cure opiate addiction, supposedly preventing any physical withdrawal effects once the drug wears off, but there is clearly something else at play here. Marijuana can cause some degree of introspection and change in perspective, so I'm going with this as the likely mechanism.
Edit: I should have clarified. I am not claiming there is only one reason marijuana reduces use of other substances. It is likely that there are several factors at play, but we need to explain why marijuana reduces the use of a wide array of substances, and the explanation that comes to mind is the subtle "psychedelic effects" of marijuana that are somewhat comparable to LSD and psilocybin.
Consider this from the lead author of the Johns Hopkins study, Matthew W. Johnson: "Quitting smoking isn't a simple biological reaction to psilocybin, as with other medications that directly affect nicotine receptors." Instead, Johnson said, it was the subjective experience the smokers had when taking the psilocybin that changed them— more like a religious conversion than getting a shot of penicillin to cure an infection.
This was exactly the conclusion psychiatrists at a Canadian psychiatric hospital, Humphrey Osmond and Abram Hoffer, reached back in the 1950s when they had great success using LSD therapy to help alcoholics stop drinking. LSD is a synthetic drug, not a natural psychedelic like psilocybin, but the user’s experience of the two is similar, if not identical. Hoffer and Osmond’s LSD treatments proved successful enough that the Canadian government would eventually issue a report saying the method was no longer an experimental treatment for alcoholism, but one that had proven effective.
Science AMA Series: Hi Reddit, we're the pilots of molecule-cars from six countries involved in the smallest car race in history, the NanoCar Race. Ask us anything!
The NanoCar Race is an event organized by the CNRS, the French National Center for Scientific Research, in which molecular machines compete on a nano-sized racetrack. These "NanoCars" or molecule-cars can have real wheels, an actual chassis... and are propelled by the energy of electric pulses! Nothing is visible to the naked eye, however a unique microscope located at the CNRS's Centre d'élaboration de matériaux et d'études structurales (CEMES) in Toulouse (south-western France) will make it possible to follow the race.
The six teams are:
-The Green Buggy from Université Paul Sabatier (Toulouse, France): http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/equipesen-fr.php
-The Swiss Nano Dragster from University of Basel (Switzerland): http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/equipesen-ch.php
-Dipolar Racer from Rice University (Houston, USA) / Graz Universität (Graz, Austria): http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/equipesen-ua.php
-Windmil from Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany): http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/equipesen-de.php
-NIMS-MANA car from National Institute for Materials Science (Tsukuba, Japan): http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/equipesen-jp.php
-Ohio Bobcat from Ohio University (Athens, USA): http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/equipes-us.php
We are also with Claire-Marie Pradier, Scientific Deputy Director at the Institute of Chemistry of the CNRS and with Erik Dujardin, Research Director at CEMES CNRS in Toulouse France, who is heading the group who organized and is hosting the first-ever race of molecular cars.
A genuine scientific prowess and an international human adventure, the race is a one-off event, and will be broadcast live on http://nanocar-race.cnrs.fr/indexEnglishLive.php and the NanoCar Race YouTube channel:
We'll be back at 11 am EST to answer your questions! AUA!
Proof : http://imgur.com/a/1QhWh
Thanks for doing and AMA and for promoting science in a fun and interesting way. I've watched parts of the stream and I have a few questions.
How are they built?
How do you transport the cars from lab to racetrack?
How was the racetrack built? What kind of material was used?
Can you steer them? If so how? Do they follow an electric gradient?
Are the cars racing on the same track, side-by-side, or on separate tracks? What would happen in case of a collision?
Distance from start to finish line?
Are there any animations of the cars that show how the different designs move along the track?
In case of a crash (or the car getting stuck) are you able to perform maintenance or replace it?
Where will you go from here? What is the next step after the race?
Will it be possible to genetically alter bacteria to produce the cars/nanobots?
Are you able to build nano-cars powered from sources other than electrical gradients, like say ATP? Like how the 'kinesin' molecule walks along microtubules in the cell.
Edit: More questions
So how do you build the cars?
How many clowns can fit into one of these cars?
On a more serious note, what type of outreach or initiatives does the race have to expose students to this cool corner of the wonderful world of STEM?
In the most basic terms possible, how exactly do electric pulses cause a nano car to function as intended?
The consequences of this spill have been exposed for years already. Even back in 2013, researchers found how dolphins were already losing teeth, suffering from lung disease, and other serious conditions: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/oil-pollution-is-making-gulf-dolphins-sick/ I know it would be an ambitious move, but I wonder if there would be a way to attempt to mass relocate these poor mammals. Everyday we learn so much more about how smart they are; this isn't new but I just I found out recently that they call each other by name: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23410137
You greatly underestimate the value of crude oil. We use it to make synthetic polymers, medicine, clothes, etc. Unfortunately, we have the nasty habit of burning it, which is troublesome. However, there is no alternative for vehicles like aeroplanes.
Crude oil is a wonderful substance; however, we make great misuse of it.
Still missing the REAL question, was the oil (which normally FLOATS on water & naturally seeps already) to blame or the corexit they used to make it sink? I'd bet the corexit is the far bigger culprit since sunlight /spray would likely help breakdown the crude which doesn't happen if it's sunk. I don't believe an enviromental study had EVER been done on corexit either. If so, intentional use of it should be considered terroristic.
There have been many studies on that. Fukushima contaminated local groundfish and other nonmigratory species, especially benthic (seafloor dwelling) species, but has had no detectable health effects on motile, migratory species like tuna and open-ocean pelagic species like dolphins. The isotopes that made it into the wider Pacific are present at much lower concentration than other radioactive isotopes that occur naturally, esp K-40. Though Fukushima was definitely nasty locally, it did not release anywhere near the sheer volume of organic toxins that Deepwater Horizon did; concentrations at given distances-from-source are much lower at Fukushima; and the substances released were an order of magnitude less varied and arguably less hazardous to health.
BTW, the largest source of manmade radioactive contamination in the Pacific remains the lingering isotopes from atmospheric fallout of 1950s nuclear weapoms testing.
So the cycling of new items for dorms, yearly probably sheds metric shit tons of chemicals into rooms. Makes sense.
Furniture flammability made a ton of sense when people used to fall asleep smoking in bed and on the couch. I am not sure if it holds the same benefits today when it turns out the chemicals they use are super toxic and end up in your blood.
Elaborate Solution: Tape up painter's plastic sheeting on all the walls and ceiling.
Simple Solution: Purchase and wear a P100-rated mask or respirator whenever in dorm. Change masks or filters every 1-2 months.
Alternative Solution: Don't worry about it, you're only there for four years tops.
Abstract from the linked study:
Furniture flammability standards are typically met with chemical flame retardants (FRs). FRs can migrate out of products into dust and are linked to cancer, neurological impairment, and endocrine disruption. We collected 95 dust samples from dormitory common areas and student rooms on two U.S. college campuses adhering to two different furniture flammability standards: Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) and Technical Bulletin 133 (TB133). Because TB133 requires furniture to withstand a much-more-demanding test flame than TB117, we hypothesized that spaces with TB133 furniture would have higher levels of FRs in dust. We found all 47 targeted FRs, including 12 polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners, 19 other brominated FRs, 11 phosphorus FRs (PFRs), 2 Dechlorane-Plus (DP) isomers, and 3 hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) isomers in the 95 dust samples. We measured the highest reported U.S. concentrations for a number of FRs, including BDE 209 (up to 990 000 ng/g), which may be used to meet the TB133 standard. We prioritized 16 FRs and analyzed levels in relation to flammability standard as well as presence and age of furniture and electronics. Adherence to TB133 was associated with higher concentrations of BDE 209, decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), DPs, and HBCDD compared to adherence to TB117 in univariate models (p < 0.05). Student dormitory rooms tended to have higher levels of some FRs compared to common rooms, likely a result of the density of furniture and electronics. As flammability standards are updated, it is critical to understand their impact on exposure and health risks.
All the incorrect information on Asbestos is bothering me so I'm going to go over a few things. I'm an Asbestos site inspector, and an Asbestos removal project monitor/manager; I operate in NYC and the tri-state area. Asbestos is a fiber that hurts you by making its way deep in your lungs where a tumor forms later in life-mesothelioma, it scars the lining of your throat causing cancer-asbestosis, and it can make its way into your digestive system where a tumor can form there (I can't remember the name, but it's the most rare.) It has to be a friable form of Asbestos (meaning easily disturbed) in order to hurt you. A lot of it is mixed with resin which also renders it harmless. The types to worry about are pipe insulation and popcorn ceiling (modern popcorn ceiling has no asbestos.) NEVER attempt to remove it yourself as you will for sure expose the entire room you removed it in. It takes a sealed environment that has negative air, foam, and water. There is also a procedure for showering evrytime you leave the work area (shower is built on site.) Even under these conditions it's easy to expose people, as such we determine on every job whether it's safer to remove it or encapsulate it (this is determined by taking background air samples.) At the same time Asbestos isn't AS bad as they say it is, but it's still bad. I can say with certainty that if you've ever been to a metropolitan area that you've inhaled at least a few fibers of Asbestos.
It amazes me how many details of Mars habitability are getting worked out so far ahead of time. Like a bunch of puzzle pieces that'll one day get put together.
Hopefully not very far ahead and that that one day isn't too far in the future. Just imagine, it's well possible to build an automated brickfactory, shoot it up in pieces, assemble it in earth orbit, send it on it's way to Mars, land it there and put it to work. By the time an astronaut team lands, they'll have a pile of bricks waiting for them.
they'll have a pile of bricks waiting for them.
Or send another automaton to do the building in advance. By the time an astronaut team lands, they'll have a pile of bricks pre-built colony waiting for them.
and/or a "get out, robo territory" sign ;-) (but you're absolutely correct: with current tech, this lies well inside the realm of the possible)
Science AMA Series : Hi Reddit, we’re Harold Brooks, Adam Clark, Kim Klockow and Patrick Marsh, NOAA scientists in Norman, Oklahoma. We’re here to answer your questions on severe weather research and forecasting. Ask us anything!
Severe weather touches every state in the U.S. Tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, hail, strong winds and floods are real threats to our property and our lives. NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed works to understand and predict severe weather to help everyone be prepared. We work in the National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma, which houses scientists from a variety of organizations, including NOAA’s National Severe Storm Laboratory (NSSL) and Storm Prediction Center, as well as the University of Oklahoma Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies.
Spring has arrived and with it come efforts to study and learn to better predict severe weather like tornadoes. Hazardous Weather Testbed and VORTEX-SE (Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes EXperiment-Southeast), which are designed to learn more about storms, help improve our abilities and bring you better forecasts. We are ready to answer your questions today from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. about all of it, so ask us anything!
Simple answer: Money.
Slightly longer answer: Move to northern Alaska.
Serious answer: You can’t make a house completely tornado proof from all tornadoes. However there are many things you can do to ensure your survivability from a tornado. Things such as ensuring that the walls of a house are bolted to the foundation and adding hurricane clips to secure the roof to the walls. However, a lot of these are things that have to be done during the construction of the house.
Regardless, the safest place to be in a tornado is in a reinforced shelter, especially one that has been rated as a shelter by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). -Patrick
Hey guys! OKC resident and OU grad here.
I've noticed that we've been pretty light on tornadoes and severe weather in general in OK for it being late April, but there seems to be a lot going on in more Eastern states. Are we in for an atypical storm system this year? As the climate warms, are we seeing Tornado Alley shift?
Hi! I'm a weather enthusiast and current meteorology student. Thanks for doing this AMA!
1) I understand the current job market is highly competitive because new technologies are making human forecasting obsolete. In your experience, is this the case? If it is, what kind of weather forecasting/research related jobs will still be necessary in the near future?
2) Since I was a little girl, It's been my dream to work for NOAA, researching and forecasting severe weather in the US. I'd love to hear more about your average day. What's exciting? What sucks? What do you love most?
Thanks again for doing this AMA!
In Oklahoma, peak tornado season is about mid-May. So, with it being late April we are still at the beginning of tornado season and it is difficult to predict how active it will be when all is said and done. Right now, we really can’t say reliably whether it will be an atypical year for storms. Nationwide, there is little correlation between how active the beginning of the storm season is with how active the rest of the season ends up being. During the last few decades there have been some changes in tornadoes - namely, the beginning of the season in tornado alley is shifting a little bit earlier, but the location of tornado alley has not changed. - Adam
Female moorland hawkers are vulnerable to harassment when they lay their eggs since, unlike some other dragonflies, they aren’t guarded by their male mates. A single sexual encounter with another male is enough to fertilise all eggs and copulating again could damage their reproductive tract
My question is, how does a dragonfly know what a dead dragonfly is supposed to look like? How do they know that's even an option?
Well I think the traditional answer in evolutionary biology for a behavior would be: doing X generally increased the odds of survival and reproduction, therefore making the genes for and therefore the behavior more common.
Apparently going limp, etc, isn't necessarily the dragonfly consciously imitating a state of death, but rather over many generations proved an effective way to save eggs for better males and more fit children. Hence the recurrence of the behavior.
I know the title is just begging for jokes but this is /sub/science, try to keep the jokes to a minimum here or the mods will almost certainly delete your comment. Still the article is interesting none the less. The constant fight for/against forced fertilization in the animal kingdom is pretty interesting.
"I think they've done their homework," he said, noting that Holen is one of the world's leading experts on what mastodon bones look like when they are broken naturally versus when they are smashed open by humans.
That is one of the most specific topics I've seen anyone be an expert in
I'd just like to say a few things based on the comments I'm seeing here:
First off, my qualifications: My current advisor is the third author on this paper and I worked under (and collaborated with) the second author when I worked at the San Diego Natural History Museum (in fact, I re-prepared some of the material in this paper about 6 years ago). Furthermore, I am a doctoral student in the final months (hopefully) of my PhD. My dissertation work has been on proboscideans (elephants and their relatives), but I have also done a fair amount of work on cetaceans (whales) and other vertebrates.
As far as the dating methods go, this site was dated using multiple types of absolute dating methods, which all resulted in a very similar age. However, the Uranium-series dating (not to be confused with radiocarbon dating, which could not give you an accurate age this old) that was used here got results with a very high confidence. In fact there is essentially no evidence of alteration that might lead to an older date (which really would not be common anyways). The dates recovered are almost unimpeachable (and I don't say that lightly). I would be very surprised if a geochronologist or any other expert had a major problems with the dates themselves (in fact a fairly well known geochronologist was a reviewer for this paper for just this reason). Also, to the people that are saying that it is perhaps time to reassess our methods of isotopic dating in general, I strongly suggest you spend more time researching and trying to understand these methods before you make a claim like this...
One other misconception that I keep seeing here are peoples' interpretation of what is meant by "human" in this paper. "Human" is meant here in the sense of a species of the genus Homo, not necessarily Homo sapiens specifically. In fact, because of the old age it seems fairly unlikely that this would be the modern species of human rather than some other [unknown] species.
I'm sure there will be other questions or comments here throughout the next day or so, and I will try to check in from time to time and update this post. I'm also happy to answer any questions that I can (to the best of my knowledge).
Hope this is at least somewhat helpful!
Edit 1: To the folks wondering if this site could have been scavenged by humans (as opposed to hunted), I would say that, that is absolutely possible. In fact there is really no evidence one way or another to argue for hunting over scavenging at this site, and I don't believe that this paper takes a stance on this either. In fact, I would say that the argument of hunting vs scavenging in association with this mastodon is somewhat irrelevant. What is important is that this extremely old site (relatively speaking, anyways) has fairly clear association with ancient human activity.
Edit 2: Several people have pointed out that the article discusses a lack of evidence of meat stripping on the specimen. This does suggest scavenging, as it likely means the soft tissue was at least somewhat rotted and not usable.
Edit 3: Many people are suggesting that this animal could have been scavenged or had its bones modified many thousands of years after its death (i.e., implying the tools are much younger than the mastodon). To that point 1) the type of breakage seen on these bones is indicative of damage while the bone was still fresh. Fresh bone (sometimes called "green bone") breaks in a very different "spiral pattern" than older dried out bone; and 2) you have to remember that the sediments that the tools and mastodon are found in represent the context in which they were buried. Therefore since these materials were all found within the same layer they must have been buried at the same time. It is possible that ancient humans exhumed old bones (though I know of no actual evidence of this), but we would see telltale signs of disturbance to the sediment (which was not observed here).
In other words, I don't think that arguments about this site will come down to whether the material is associated and coeval, but whether folks think that these artifacts are indeed stone tools. Those people who do not agree with this identification will then have to reconcile the crazy taphonomy at this site and attribute it to some other natural process (which will be no small feat, IMHO).
Edit 4: For the people asking why we don't have any evidence of humans (or human remains) in North America in the time between the age of this site and more generally accepted dates:
First off, I would just like to note that we are almost certainly not talking about a direct lineage of humans between the time of this site and those of Clovis times (in fact, as I've stated above, we are likely not even talking about the same species). This was likely a very small population of humans that made it to North America that probably died out long before the modern species of human ever made it over. In that sense, there isn't necessarily a gap of time to "bridge".
As for why potential sites might not be preserved: There are a couple of reasons that you might not have evidence of humans found from this time. First off, you may not have rocks of the right age readily exposed in the region where the individuals were living (which is somewhat the case on the west coast, as far as I am aware). Second, the individuals could be living in an environment that is not conducive to preserving fossils (e.g., organisms that live in montane environments tend to not preserve in the fossil record because sediments are not being deposited in those regions). Third, getting preserved in the fossil record (in general) is very rare, and if your study organism has a very small population size or is short lived (as we would expect in the case here) then you have a very very low probability of being preserved (let alone found and collected). Finally, even if these scenarios aren't the case, there is the possibility that scientists have just been looking in the wrong strata, region, or age.
You'd be surprised at the number of topics where there's only a handful of experts. Happens with something like metallurgy because there's not that many metallurgists in the world, for example.
Edit: Yes, I get it, metallurgists Reddit. Talk to each other, how many of you are doing the exact same thing and how many of you are so specialized that there only a few, even among metallurgists, that can relate?
I'm a bioanthropologist and everyone in my department are talking about this. I agree on the dating. It looks very secure. So that leaves us with a debate about the lithics (are the stone tools really tools) and the taphonomy (do the bones really reflect human butchery).
As to which species this is I think Homo erectus is pretty plausible, as we know they were able to get to Indonesian islands that were only accessible by boat or raft. I think the Denisovans are plausible too. We know that the ancestors of today's Polynesians had Denisovan relatives, so maybe they were seafaring in the area back then.
Right now I think the least likely candidate if the dating is accurate is modern humans. If they made it to America that early then where are all the sites between the Pacific Coast and Africa? I mean we don't have humans in Australia until 60k at the very earliest. At least we know that humans were boating by then, but this would double the date of the oldest seafaring/rafting. The dating suggests an interglacial period, so the only way to get there from the old world includes some open water travel.