5 ms·

Ctrl-F "apophenia" 0 matches on this page Welp, that's pretty sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

by apathy 10y ago

liquidise 10y ago
Excellent link, but no need to poopoo a post because the author's vocab didn't include a word you expected.
- apathy 10y ago
  Words and concepts exist for a reason. The author of the post could have turned up the (well researched and imho fascinating) antecedent work very quickly simply by googling his piece's title. That he did not makes me sad. Very smart people have previously studied most interesting problems. Ignoring their work is both arrogant and foolish. Put differently, you don't learn much by talking, but you learn a lot by listening. You learn a little by writing, but you and your readers learn much more if you read up first. (I am not assuming you wrote this. The themes are general.) If I wrote a piece that ignored a decades-old, well-known, fundamental result, not only would editors and colleagues slam me for it, I'd be ashamed of it myself. I went back and skimmed a few more of this author's posts and I have to say, they're not of a quality I would suggest to students. If they happen to read this, I hope they'll talk with someone who has a little formal training and revise their work.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Does joining the Nazi party qualify you as being very smart? Wikipedia references work [0] that indicates Konrad's theory could not be validated empirically. Do you have any references that validate what you are claiming as a well-known, fundamental result? Can you give a definition of the theory? [0] https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2007-999113 https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2007-999113
    - apathy 10y ago
      I'm tempted to point out that you went from zero to Godwin in record time. To assume that Konrad's party affiliation (likely a pragmatic choice at the time) either validates or invalidates his work is a bit absurd. The issue as I see it is one of the modern meaning, which is to say, a tendency to see patterns where none exist. Nonetheless, let us see whether Konrad's work has been dismantled in more recent studies. A quick trip to PubMed suggests otherwise: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800156/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800156/ Note that I did not claim Konrad's result was fundamental. I stated that if I ignored a fundamental result in my writing, I would be pilloried. Konrad's theory of prodromal schizophrenic ideation beginning with this tendency to see patterns where none exist is perhaps of interests to psychiatric historians, but it is not what I would call fundamental. I would claim that if the perfect term for a concept exists and is established, one should use it. Apophenia, in its now accepted colloquial meaning, is an exceptionally handy shorthand for what the writer describes. Like other swell ideas (Gaussian processes, natural selection) it is so useful that it has accumulated several names (as a parallel, kriging and clonal evolution are alternate). Either would work fine here.
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        I didn't say his party affiliation validates or invalidates his theory. I said that a published paper was not able to validate it empirically. The big issue I have is that it seems impossible to define a general concept of "pattern", such that one could claim it doesn't exist. If such a concept cannot be defined, then it is unclear what the concept actually means. The only thing I can imagine that could possibly fit would be if it meant that a person generates a theory and testable hypothesis that is able to invalidate the theory, and fails to find any supporting evidence when the hypothesis is tested, but still claims that the theory was validated in a way that is demonstrably false. Personally, I don't think psychiatrists are so invested in their patients that they would actually carry out such tests. The article that you linked primarily recounts a single anecdote where Konrad seems to assume very much about his patient (also, it was unclear about the circumstances; do you know if the anecdote occurred during Nazi rule?). No mention is made of Konrad attempting to verify any if the patient's claims. What result are you claiming as fundamental? The entire theory seems to be self defeating, as a pattern was suggested that has not been able to be verified.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Disappointment is not "poopoo"ing.
unit91 10y ago
Irony: someone with the user name "apathy" cares a great deal about word choices.
- apathy 10y ago
  More than I care about accuracy in usernames. Why use two pages when one word will do?
  - Retra 10y ago
    Two pages will be relevant to a far larger audience than one word will.
    - apathy 10y ago
      Not when it's two pages of garbage. Happily, the Wikipedia page is already written and edited with examples. I looked at the author's other work. It is quite poor. This is clickbait.

Ctrl-F "apophenia" 0 matches on this page Welp, that's pretty sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

by apathy 10y ago

Ctrl-F "apophenia" 0 matches on this page Welp, that's pretty sad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

liquidise 10y ago

Excellent link, but no need to poopoo a post because the author's vocab didn't include a word you expected.

apathy 10y ago
Words and concepts exist for a reason. The author of the post could have turned up the (well researched and imho fascinating) antecedent work very quickly simply by googling his piece's title. That he did not makes me sad. Very smart people have previously studied most interesting problems. Ignoring their work is both arrogant and foolish. Put differently, you don't learn much by talking, but you learn a lot by listening. You learn a little by writing, but you and your readers learn much more if you read up first. (I am not assuming you wrote this. The themes are general.) If I wrote a piece that ignored a decades-old, well-known, fundamental result, not only would editors and colleagues slam me for it, I'd be ashamed of it myself. I went back and skimmed a few more of this author's posts and I have to say, they're not of a quality I would suggest to students. If they happen to read this, I hope they'll talk with someone who has a little formal training and revise their work.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Does joining the Nazi party qualify you as being very smart? Wikipedia references work [0] that indicates Konrad's theory could not be validated empirically. Do you have any references that validate what you are claiming as a well-known, fundamental result? Can you give a definition of the theory? [0] https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2007-999113 https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2007-999113
  - apathy 10y ago
    I'm tempted to point out that you went from zero to Godwin in record time. To assume that Konrad's party affiliation (likely a pragmatic choice at the time) either validates or invalidates his work is a bit absurd. The issue as I see it is one of the modern meaning, which is to say, a tendency to see patterns where none exist. Nonetheless, let us see whether Konrad's work has been dismantled in more recent studies. A quick trip to PubMed suggests otherwise: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800156/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800156/ Note that I did not claim Konrad's result was fundamental. I stated that if I ignored a fundamental result in my writing, I would be pilloried. Konrad's theory of prodromal schizophrenic ideation beginning with this tendency to see patterns where none exist is perhaps of interests to psychiatric historians, but it is not what I would call fundamental. I would claim that if the perfect term for a concept exists and is established, one should use it. Apophenia, in its now accepted colloquial meaning, is an exceptionally handy shorthand for what the writer describes. Like other swell ideas (Gaussian processes, natural selection) it is so useful that it has accumulated several names (as a parallel, kriging and clonal evolution are alternate). Either would work fine here.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      I didn't say his party affiliation validates or invalidates his theory. I said that a published paper was not able to validate it empirically. The big issue I have is that it seems impossible to define a general concept of "pattern", such that one could claim it doesn't exist. If such a concept cannot be defined, then it is unclear what the concept actually means. The only thing I can imagine that could possibly fit would be if it meant that a person generates a theory and testable hypothesis that is able to invalidate the theory, and fails to find any supporting evidence when the hypothesis is tested, but still claims that the theory was validated in a way that is demonstrably false. Personally, I don't think psychiatrists are so invested in their patients that they would actually carry out such tests. The article that you linked primarily recounts a single anecdote where Konrad seems to assume very much about his patient (also, it was unclear about the circumstances; do you know if the anecdote occurred during Nazi rule?). No mention is made of Konrad attempting to verify any if the patient's claims. What result are you claiming as fundamental? The entire theory seems to be self defeating, as a pattern was suggested that has not been able to be verified.
duaneb 10y ago
Disappointment is not "poopoo"ing.

unit91 10y ago

Irony: someone with the user name "apathy" cares a great deal about word choices.

apathy 10y ago
More than I care about accuracy in usernames. Why use two pages when one word will do?
- Retra 10y ago
  Two pages will be relevant to a far larger audience than one word will.
  - apathy 10y ago
    Not when it's two pages of garbage. Happily, the Wikipedia page is already written and edited with examples. I looked at the author's other work. It is quite poor. This is clickbait.