User talk:Generalrelative
|
|
Pinned comments[edit]
George Floyd and Dostoevsky[edit]
Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Michele Clark[edit]
I learned about her when I was reading The Boys on the Bus, where the (iirc) one and only mention of her is the author introducing some random thing she said with "Michelle [sic] Clark, a young, extremely beautiful black reporter from CBS's Chicago Bureau had said [...]" and then in a footnote he says "On December 8, 1972, she was killed in a plane crash at Chicago's Midway Airport". I was like, dang, what a way to memorialize someone: I thought she was hot, then she died. Astrophobe (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation[edit]
Hi Generalrelative :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite, Clovermoss :) I'll give it some thought. Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV_claims regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RBut (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024[edit]
 
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Jo Boaler[edit]
Hi Generalrelative. You recently implemented an edit request for Jo Boaler. I thanked you on Talk:Jo Boaler in the context of an additional edit request. I would appreciate if you could go have a look at that request, found here: Talk:Jo Boaler#2021 California Math Framework 2. Thanks in advance, MeanderingWalrus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Heya, looks like STEMinfo got to this first. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024[edit]
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Since I was writing a reply I couldn't publish...[edit]
I'll inflict it on you anyway, here it is:
Never heard of either (guessing you meant to link American Renaissance (magazine)), but according to WP, they are not very similar to Quillette. Unz does say "blog" btw. Fwiw, I wouldn't add either, assuming they're not blacklisted so I could, so maybe our common sense does have some overlap after all. To me, those articles do look awful for this purpose. The Q is just, long, dull, and me-me-me-whiny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I understand how it might look that way at first glance, but this is why WP is not considered a reliable source. Magazines like American Renaissance just say the quiet part out loud, and editorial oversight at Quillette is clearly well-nigh nonexistent so long as the content fits the right ideological message (they are certainly not doing any fact checking). Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
My apologies[edit]
As advised by an admin, I took a step back from Heiner Rindermann and now realise that you were completely justified in reverting my edits, given that I had been canvassed by a banned user, and that my reaction was unduly confrontational. I'll try to be more collaborative. Nangaf (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying this! I was just thinking of how to compose a similar message to you. Looking back I could certainly have composed my initial comments on your talk page in a less confrontational manner. In my experience it's unfortunately all too easy for good-faith contributors to get our wires crossed and see one another as adversaries when we're actually after the same thing –– which is why I should have taken extra steps to convey AGF. Anyway, glad we're able to squash that dispute. Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes, but it also has a way of bringing people who have the best interest of the encyclopedia together in the end. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Concerning Psychedelic therapy[edit]
Sorry to be bothering you again about an issue we discussed on FTN three years ago (here: [1]). At that time you and some other editors convinced me that I was wrong in thinking that the medical claims for psychedelic therapy should be treated skeptically and perhaps be classified as fringe. An article in today's NY Times made me return to that concern, although not to the extent of wanting to raise it again at FTN, since I'm not suggesting categorizing anything here as fringe. The article [2] focuses on the research at Johns Hopkins University that was led by Roland Griffiths. It describes some serious criticisms of the methodology, such as conflict of interest, confirmation bias, sample bias, placebo effects, and quasi-religious aspects. The article Psychedelic therapy, while acknowledging that the evidence of effectiveness is limited and calling for more research, does not mention criticisms of bias in the research that's been done. I could raise this on the article talk-page, but i wanted to consult with you first. If you have time to read the NY Times article, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey NightHeron, thanks for the link. I'll take a look and give it some thought. In the meantime, I saw this recent piece about psilocybin therapy in Oregon: [3]. Will circle back around when I have a bit more time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Generalrelative, for your message and the link to an interesting NPR article about the Oregon "experiment" with psilocybin. I was dimly aware of Oregon's experiment from the last section of the Psychedelic therapy article. The NPR article raises fascinating questions. I feel very much like an outsider here. The whole area is far from my own knowledge and experience, either professionally or personally. One question is whether the same standards that apply to experiments with human subjects in physiological medicine need to apply to psychological/psychiatric medicine. The NPR article mentions that issue with the Oregon experiment. I encountered a similar issue in an edit I made to the last subsection of Positive psychology on the US Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, which, like Oregon's psilocybin project, has also been described as an experiment, in that case testing a proposed method to reduce the high rates of suicide, drug abuse, PTSD, and other adverse psychological consequences experienced by U.S. soldiers.
- Wikipedia in general takes a hard line against alt-med in the physiological area, but apparently less so in the psychological/psychiatric area.
- Anyway, when you have some time I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the NY Times article. NightHeron (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'd say your assessment is overall correct: Wikipedia tends to take a harder line against alt-med in physiological medicine than in psychology. But I'd say that's largely a function of following the best sources, which tend to do the same. Surely this epistemic caution is at least in part a response to the spectacular implosion of radical behaviorism in the mid-20th century. My view is that a realistic assessment of what we know about the workings of the human psyche –– that is, what we know systematically –– is relatively limited when compared to what we know about the workings of the body (though that too is limited, and there are a few psychological metrics with some degree of construct validity like IQ and the big 5 personality traits). So in the absence of certainty in the literature, our articles likewise reflect uncertainty.
Wrt the NYT piece, I was only able to read a short snippet because I don't have a subscription and my normal method for hopping the paywall isn't currently working. But responding to that: I'm not surprised that some scientists and medical practitioners may be put off by the "new-age" vibe of psilocybin treatment centers. But that in itself is not a data-based critique. Perhaps humans really are the kind of creatures for whom having an experience that can only be described as "transcendent" or "quasi-religious" is the best way to heal certain psychological maladies (with outward behavioral correlates)? If that does turn out to be the case, as more and more data comes in, I'd argue that the scientific attitude would be to shelve our preconceptions about what science-based medicine is supposed to look and feel like. But indeed, collecting that kind of data should be a paramount concern, alongside attempting to treat people who are in acute distress. Just my 2¢ obviously. I do appreciate you looping me in here! Generalrelative (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I realize that questions of appropriate treatment for psychiatric conditions are complex. The same is true about alt-med for physical conditions. I think that some of the editors who work on the alt-med articles are so oriented toward the U.S. and U.K. that they ignore the reality that much of the world's population has at best limited access to modern medicine and so tries to rely on prescientific and protoscientific approaches, some of which are much better than nothing and some of which are nonsense or worse. The Cuban health ministry, with limited access to standard pharmaceuticals because of the U.S. embargo, has a policy of coexisting with and not discouraging alt-med. From a WP:GLOBAL perspective, there's more going on than "lunatic charlatanism" in Jimmy Wales' famous formulation. Regarding treatment for psychiatric conditions, while recognizing the need to be openminded about approaches that seem to violate standard scientific norms, I think there are dangers as well that need to be acknowledged in unregulated (or very lightly regulated) treatments. For example, Marcia Angell has long been a critic of the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs to children in the U.S. Anyway, thanks again for your observations. NightHeron (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'd say your assessment is overall correct: Wikipedia tends to take a harder line against alt-med in physiological medicine than in psychology. But I'd say that's largely a function of following the best sources, which tend to do the same. Surely this epistemic caution is at least in part a response to the spectacular implosion of radical behaviorism in the mid-20th century. My view is that a realistic assessment of what we know about the workings of the human psyche –– that is, what we know systematically –– is relatively limited when compared to what we know about the workings of the body (though that too is limited, and there are a few psychological metrics with some degree of construct validity like IQ and the big 5 personality traits). So in the absence of certainty in the literature, our articles likewise reflect uncertainty.
Women in Red April 2024[edit]
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging