NationStates Jolt Archive

http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.ca/News/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=a4021aa724294ba18e65c5a2e470d51a&show=True&number=5&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc

All your long junk DNA are belong to us.

Cats and now this?

YES!!! Another thing to blame my antisocial tendencies...one more thing and I'll be able to blame my lifestyle completely upon external forces..

THANK YOU SCIENCE!!!!

All such studies should bear in mind that according to a NIH/University of Minnisota poll about 1/3rd of scientists polled admitted to unethical behavior. Sure less than .3% confessed to fabricating data whole cloth, only a little more than 1/8th admitted to designing studies knowing the results would not be scientifically valid, and a tad less than 1/6th let on that they massaged date that they knew in their gut was wrong, so the study is probably factually accurate.

Of course there is 0.3% chance that the Uniiversity of Minnisota researchers who conducted the poll would allow on a similar poll they they fabricated thier numbers (provided they didn't fabricate the 0.3% number), so the poll on the weak ethics of scientists is to be considered only as accurate as any other similar report by scientists.

All such studies should bear in mind that according to a NIH/University of Minnisota poll about 1/3rd of scientists polled admitted to unethical behavior. Sure less than .3% confessed to fabricating data whole cloth, only a little more than 1/8th admitted to designing studies knowing the results would not be scientifically valid, and a tad less than 1/6th let on that they massaged date that they knew in their gut was wrong, so the study is probably factually accurate.

Of course there is 0.3% chance that the Uniiversity of Minnisota researchers who conducted the poll would allow on a similar poll they they fabricated thier numbers (provided they didn't fabricate the 0.3% number), so the poll on the weak ethics of scientists is to be considered only as accurate as any other similar report by scientists.

Yeah, but how many of those 'scientists' had a headliner of a study on their hands? Most scientists never get a chance to make the news. I'd bet the percentage among scientists on high-profile studies massaging data, or worse, is much higher. That'd explain the semi-annual "chocolate causes cancer," "chocolate prevents cancer" type of thing.

Yeah, but how many of those 'scientists' had a headliner of a study on their hands? Most scientists never get a chance to make the news. I'd bet the percentage among scientists on high-profile studies massaging data, or worse, is much higher. That'd explain the semi-annual "chocolate causes cancer," "chocolate prevents cancer" type of thing.Well, I have to concede that polls are notorius for being inaccuate with regards to reality . If you've never done it, try the clasic - poll people for their height and weight, and then measure them for height and weight (for more dramatic results don't tell them you will measure when you poll them) to see the difference between the results of a poll and reality.

As for the more sensationist studies, I don't know if your theory is correct, I suspect it would be offset somewhat by the fear of more rigorous investigation of outrageous claims and subsequent discrediting. Come to think of it, most criminals in prison were confident at the time of the offense that they wouldn't be caught, and the more outrageous the crime the more confident they were of not being caught. Hmm, you raise an interesting concept here.

What I've gleaned from my meagre academic efforts, you need to produce a fair quantity of background material in order to motivate study in a specific area. The vast quantity of sources that you find in the references section of most research articles provides a framework of understanding that the current investigation attempts to tie together in a meaningful way, to underpin the conclusions that they're trying to make.

To look for a source, genetic or otherwise, puts the phenomenon into a context that it's an undesireable, that it needs to be aeitiologically defined, so that it can be fixed. As a kid, I was plagued by crippling shyness, and would physically hide behind my parents during social events that made me uncomfortable. They'd do their best to get me to engage socially with others, and as an adult I realise that it was probably uncomfortable for them that I was so unwilling to speak to others. At the time, I remember that it wasn't so much terror, as a lack of knowing HOW to interact with others. Based on that lack of knowledge, I just prefered not to talk with people. It was more convenient. Plus, most adults can be pretty patronising when they're trying to 'bring you out of your shell.' Treating me like I was intellectually disabled when I was probably reading at a higher grade level than their older children.

I've worked with and studied autistic kids, and it's nothing like shyness. It's profound, and it has a whole bunch of possible underlying factors. Shyness is not a disability. Shyness is just a part of your personality, like a temper or a sense of humour, and it can be adequately shaped by social learning. If you know HOW to interact with people, and you know when you simply must interact with others, then I find it hard to consider shyness as a problem that needs to be fixed. There's far too much pressure on shy people to be more outgoing, as if our social role as humans is to provide entertainment for our peers. We need to accept that it takes all types of people to fill the world, and some of those people just aren't inclined to play the social butterfly. We need to be okay with that, instead of making shy people out to be deficient in some way.

I outgrew my childhood shyness, though I'm not an extrovert. Most shy kiddies grow up to be functionally normal adults. While I respect the study for what it achieves academically, I think the MSN article is bollocks for attempting to tie it to shyness, and thereby perpetuating the idea that shyness is a deficiency in personality.