31–38 of 38 posts
Did anybody else think of fair people as pretty people and not just people as the article states?
That was my first impression also. Then I noticed that the article comes to us from the field of social psychology, so I decided it didn't really matter how many words were used in ambiguous ways -- it's not science, after all.
For some reason fMRI terrifies me in the sense that it will be misused to predict human behavior. The idea that we can effectively read your brain leads to the assumption that we can understand the behaviors, and I think that is false.
Take a look at the field of neuromarketing.
I don't find this study credible. The folks I've met who react strongly to justice appears to me to be running through some intense emotions. Those emotions tend to be highly concentrated to a point where it appears to be reason, but they are still forms of emotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fMRI psych studies were debunked by the dead fish paper years ago. (In short: investigators misreport the measurement apparatus's random noise as significant results.) Why does the neuro community still publish fMRI psych papers? Is it is a case homeopahy where the quacks are the ones doing the peer rebiews and the entire specialty is a most cause?
fMRI is a tool. Just like every other tool it can be wielded skilfully or incompetently and in the case of fMRI you must do your stats properly (c.f. the Multiple Comparisons problem [1]). There's nothing out there that 'debunks' fMRI as a tool. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem Edit: Indeed fMRI allows us to do things we had no hope of doing before, e.g. communication with those who are o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fMRI is a tool. Just like every other tool it can be wielded skilfully or incompetently and in the case of fMRI you must do your stats properly (c.f. the Multiple Comparisons problem [1]). There's nothing out there that 'debunks' fMRI as a tool. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem Edit: Indeed fMRI allows us to do things we had no hope of doing before, e.g. communication with those who are o…
If Adrian Owen was your co-supervisor, you should know better than to say that fMRI allows you to communicate with patients in a vegetative state. VS means, by definition, that the patient is unresponsive. Communication via fMRI or brain computer interface is still only possible with patients that are conscious (e.g. locked in, or in a minimally conscious state).
And IIRC they were VS until such studies demonstrated that actually not all of them were (which was my point).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why it does not follow instead of just putting not in italics for all the non-psychology PhD's in the crowd?
I'll try breaking it down, along with the questions that came to mind as I read it. ... people with high justice sensitivity showed more activity than average participants in parts of the brain associated with higher-order cognition. What is the activity being measured relative to? One of the issues with any brain imaging study is the baseline condition you make comparisons with. To state that you saw more activity i…
Thanks.