JakeTheDog's recent activity

  1. Comment on OSTP issues guidance to make Federally funded research freely available without delay in ~science

    JakeTheDog
    Link
    This is pretty big. Only downside is how far away the due date is. I expect there will be lots of pushback from publication corporations. From the memorandum:

    This is pretty big. Only downside is how far away the due date is. I expect there will be lots of pushback from publication corporations.

    From the memorandum:

    This memorandum provides policy guidance to federal agencies with research and development
    expenditures on updating their public access policies. In accordance with this memorandum,
    OSTP recommends that federal agencies, to the extent consistent with applicable law:

    1. Update their public access policies as soon as possible, and no later than December 31 st ,
      2025, to make publications and their supporting data resulting from federally funded
      research publicly accessible without an embargo on their free and public release;
    2. Establish transparent procedures that ensure scientific and research integrity is
      maintained in public access policies; and,
    3. Coordinate with OSTP to ensure equitable delivery of federally funded research results
      and data.
    2 votes
  2. Comment on Gross games about flesh and stuff in ~games

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Yeah, even if the game sucks I'm still going to play it just to be in the world of HR Geiger.

    Yeah, even if the game sucks I'm still going to play it just to be in the world of HR Geiger.

    1 vote
  3. Comment on Porn use and men's and women's sexual performance: Evidence from a large longitudinal sample in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    What is unclear? They define sexual performance as: And then in the methods section they specify: I hope you weren't expecting an "objective" measure via a panel of judges :P

    when they measured sexual performance, it's not entirely clear to me what data they used?

    What is unclear?

    They define sexual performance as:

    sexual self-competence, sexual functioning, and partner-reported sexual satisfaction

    And then in the methods section they specify:

    RQ1. Sexual self-competence. We used the sexual self-competence measure from the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ; Snell, Reference Snell, Fisher, Davis, Yarber and Davis1998; five items, e.g. ‘I am a pretty good sexual partner’).
    RQ2. Sexual functioning. We adapted the items of the Sexual Function Index (Isidori et al., Reference Isidori, Pozza, Esposito, Ciotola, Giugliano, Morano and Jannini2010), a six-item clinical tool that assesses sexual desire, sexual arousal, biological functioning (erection/lubrication), sexual climax, sexual satisfaction, and vaginal discomfort (for women) during sexual activities (for the exact wording of the items for men and women, see online Supplementary Table S3).
    RQ3. Partner-reported sexual satisfaction. We used the sexual satisfaction measure from the MSSCQ (five items, e.g. ‘I am very satisfied with my sexual relationship’). For each wave, this variable was attached to the participating partner to create the partner-reported sexual satisfaction measure.

    I hope you weren't expecting an "objective" measure via a panel of judges :P

    1 vote
  4. Comment on Gross games about flesh and stuff in ~games

    JakeTheDog
    Link
    Personally, I can't wait for Scorn. Hopefully it won't be a flop, as some people are getting the feeling it might be given their recent videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVrfvIbJkqg

    Personally, I can't wait for Scorn. Hopefully it won't be a flop, as some people are getting the feeling it might be given their recent videos.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVrfvIbJkqg

    1 vote
  5. Comment on Porn use and men's and women's sexual performance: Evidence from a large longitudinal sample in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    I don't disagree, but I want to add nuance. This is firstly a very fuzzy threshold, it would be more correct to say in the mid-twenties, but can be at anytime in the 20's. Though 21 is on the...

    Full brain development happens at around 25.

    I don't disagree, but I want to add nuance.
    This is firstly a very fuzzy threshold, it would be more correct to say in the mid-twenties, but can be at anytime in the 20's. Though 21 is on the extreme end, so this point probably stands here.
    Second, that "development" is about rational cognition, which doesn't apply so much here. Maybe a little, but self-image and sexuality is rarely a rational thought process.

    I wonder how much different the results would be in a study of adults (physically rather than legally).

    So, while you have a point, I would predict that the effects in the paper would be upheld throughout life. I would also predict that the effects might dwindle at later ages when individuals become more confident and more experienced, both with their self-image and sexuality.

    4 votes
  6. Comment on Porn use and men's and women's sexual performance: Evidence from a large longitudinal sample in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link
    Cavaet: see the table on participants. Average age was 21 and largely heterosexual.

    Methods
    We conducted a three-wave longitudinal study (spanning 2015-16-17) that involved a very large number of men and women in their early 20s (100 000 + French-speaking individuals; 4000 + heterosexual couples).
    Results
    The results revealed a twofold phenomenon. Among men, a higher frequency of porn use (wave 1) and increased porn use over time (waves 1–3) were associated with lower levels of sexual self-competence, impaired sexual functioning, and decreased partner-reported sexual satisfaction. In contrast, among women, higher and increasing frequencies of porn use were associated with higher levels of sexual self-competence, improved sexual functioning, and enhanced partner-reported sexual satisfaction (for some aspects).

    ... men watch more hardcore/paraphilic porn and less softcore/mainstream porn than women (Hald, Reference Hald2006; Hald & Štulhofer, Reference Hald and Štulhofer2016), which may be associated with different sexual comparison processes and sexual outcomes (Leonhardt & Willoughby, Reference Leonhardt and Willoughby2019). These gender differences are consistent with our results. Among young men, the potentially inspiring nature of porn might be outweighed by its threatening nature: Porn use seemingly contributes to men's doubts about their sexual competence, the deterioration of their sexual functioning, and – in heterosexual couples – their partner-reported satisfaction. In contrast, among young women, the potentially inspiring nature of porn might outweigh its threatening nature: Porn use seemingly contributes to women's feelings of sexual competence, improvement in their sexual functioning, and – in heterosexual couples – some aspects of their partner-reported satisfaction.

    Cavaet: see the table on participants. Average age was 21 and largely heterosexual.

    5 votes
  7. Comment on ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Good point, I'll add that to my dialectic toolbox for the future. If I can get a redo: So, examples 1 and 3 may seem analogous to 2, but 1 and 3 are two extremes that distinct from example 2 with...

    Usually, merely explaining what you perceived as fallacious is more likely to persuade.

    Good point, I'll add that to my dialectic toolbox for the future.

    If I can get a redo:

    So, examples 1 and 3 may seem analogous to 2, but 1 and 3 are two extremes that distinct from example 2 with respect to agency. In example 1, there is no chance of informed consent because there is a lack of reasoning abilities. By definition of delusion/delirium, temporary or otherwise, there's not even an objective framework of reality that would allow communication. In example 3, it's the same problem of informed consent, albeit it's a temporary one. In example 2, there is the possibility of informed consent. Even though there may be some bias from the person towards the outcome, their ability to reason is fundamentally intact.

    Your first comment generalized

    Mental health issues often deprive the patient of a firm grip on reality

    Which may be true for some people some of the time. But, and this is crucial, there is no objective "reality" when it comes to our experiences. How we feel is fundamentally isolated from other individuals, hence the hard problem of consciousness. When someone is incapacitated by their anxiety or depression, that is their reality. They're in a prison of suffering, regardless of the blue skies everyone else experiences.

    It seems complicated, but only because we all fundamentally are not able to emphasize with the experiences of others. But it really is simple once one stops trying to solve the lives of others and instead respect the validity of their experience and uphold their agency.

    So, again, I think we're both agreeing on having people be well informed and having some kind of guardrails. I'm still unsure about what you are arguing against. My explanation in this comment is to give background on why I don't think it's a fundamentally complicated issue.

    2 votes
  8. Comment on ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Sorry if I came off as aggressive, I didn't mean it. I only used 'ridiculous' because you already prefaced by saying they were absurd. And I wasn't dismissing your argument as such, I said that...

    Sorry if I came off as aggressive, I didn't mean it. I only used 'ridiculous' because you already prefaced by saying they were absurd. And I wasn't dismissing your argument as such, I said that examples 1 and 3 are. Which was important for me to point out, because they were strawman examples, and would derail my line of reasoning.

    I hope you see that I was indeed trying to understand you by first stating that I want to know where you disagree with me, because I am/was confused on that point. I mostly saw agreement, but your post implied disagreement.

    3 votes
  9. Comment on ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    I agree, but I think it should be less of a legal one (that's for the doctors) and more of a social and spiritual one. Most people probably won't leave the party so readily, as the will to survive...

    we should offer better options for living than a complicated legal process

    I agree, but I think it should be less of a legal one (that's for the doctors) and more of a social and spiritual one. Most people probably won't leave the party so readily, as the will to survive is one of the strongest inherent motivators we have, but I think it would be a benefit for humanity just to double check with those willing to die that they are definitely willing, and they didn't e.g. by happenstance miss an aspect of philosophy or available option in their life paths that would dramatically improve their wellbeing.

    Which I assume is similar to what you meant by:

    Make it easier to choose life so death is rarely the preferred option.

    3 votes
  10. Comment on ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Okay, I appreciate the examples, but I don't see how it changes the argument, or more to the point: where you are disagreeing with me. In my top-level post, I state that there should be some...

    Okay, I appreciate the examples, but I don't see how it changes the argument, or more to the point: where you are disagreeing with me.

    In my top-level post, I state that there should be some mechanism to protect against impulsive assisted suicide.

    Your examples 1 and 3 are ridiculous and resolved simply in today's legal medical processes: we would answer both with a rejection. It's less absurdum than strawman. My point is that there is no authority on whether or not the suffering justifies suicide but the suffering individual. To say otherwise is to unnecessarily complicate the situation. You say it's not as simple as it seems, but it is simple: they have been suffering for a length of time, are fully informed, and want to die. Yes there should be attempts to help, of course. Yes there are cases of bad faith manipulation, but that's not the discussion here.

    To put it simply: if people want to die, let them die (with the framework of informed consent). Who are you to take that away from them?

    For the record, I'm a strong advocate for doing everything we can to support people living a good life. I would even say that teaching more philosophy in grade school would be a fundamental component for preventing such cases of psychological suffering. But that doesn't address the fundamental issue of choosing our own death.

    7 votes
  11. Comment on ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Okay, so what? Suffering is subjective. No amount of assessments changes what the person experiences. I don't dismiss mental health concerns, which is why I mention having the practical mechanisms...

    Okay, so what? Suffering is subjective. No amount of assessments changes what the person experiences.

    I don't dismiss mental health concerns, which is why I mention having the practical mechanisms that make sure the patient is fully informed and taking the matter seriously. Did you mean to say something else? Because to me it sounds like you're rationalizing a way to take away the patients volition and agency by stating that they're incompetent.

    10 votes
  12. Comment on ‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws in ~health

    JakeTheDog
    (edited )
    Link
    This is one of my biggest gripes with the euthanasia debate. If there is every practical mechanism put in place to prevent someone from choosing death on a whim or in the heat of the moment, and...

    His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die: hearing loss.

    The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left.

    This is one of my biggest gripes with the euthanasia debate. If there is every practical mechanism put in place to prevent someone from choosing death on a whim or in the heat of the moment, and they are informed of the available therapeutic resources available, who is anyone else to decide wether or not their reason for requesting death is sufficient? To me this is inhumane and indecent. If I want to die, give me a year to think about it over with some people I respect, and then respect my decision to die.

    There is such a lack of respect displayed with our lack of respect for death. It's treated like an inherently bad thing, when there's so much nuance. On the extreme end is favoring life extension and traumatizing therapies (like much of chemo) when it only leads to more suffering, while making the self-righteous decision-makers feel like they were doing society a favor. God knows a hospice or old folks home is far from the ideal place to be spending your remaining years and hours. More subtle are the criminal cases of direct manipulation of cognitively-disabled folks for financial gains, but those are not unsolvable and rare enough to not warrant throwing out the baby.

    Why can't we just talk more about death? Revere it like birth. Reflect on our death and the death of our loved ones and how we would ideally like it to happen. We don't treat it seriously enough. It's rare to have the opportunity to leave the party by our own volition. More often we are kicked out, begging and clawing back.

    Personally, I plan on living until I can't live well anymore. "Well" as defined by me. I hope that in a few decades, when I hope it's my time, we all have the choice to leave this life peacefully and on our own terms.

    15 votes
  13. Comment on How does one "deal" with a recession? in ~finance

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Yeah, I think this is basically the plan, which is to say: unless you're as risk of losing your job, ignore the recession and continue living life.

    Yeah, I think this is basically the plan, which is to say: unless you're as risk of losing your job, ignore the recession and continue living life.

    2 votes
  14. Comment on €2 billion underground ‘water battery’ turns on in Switzerland in ~enviro

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Who's calling it revolutionary or new? Neither of those words come up in either of the two articles OP posted. And, why are you getting fired up over semantics?

    Who's calling it revolutionary or new? Neither of those words come up in either of the two articles OP posted. And, why are you getting fired up over semantics?

    5 votes
  15. Comment on Nationalism is underrated by intellectuals in ~humanities

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    To me this is a far cry from people thinking poverty is required, and enforced, so that the garbage gets cleaned up. I don't subscribe to this kind of conspiratorial thinking. It assumes far too...

    "Poor people are only poor because they choose to be poor" or "If we had social safety nets, nobody would ever work demeaning jobs, so we need to keep people on the brink of homelessness so they get done"

    To me this is a far cry from people thinking poverty is required, and enforced, so that the garbage gets cleaned up. I don't subscribe to this kind of conspiratorial thinking. It assumes far too much. I can see that it's popular, though.

    Your quotes confuse conspiracy with the argument that money motivates people to work. Which is the problem that I'm arguing against.

    Using any razor here, my reasoning is that reducing social support frameworks is largely motivated by the greed of the "have's". Less money for social security means more money for landowners/business owners/corporations. This is also a factor motivating the adoption of automation.

  16. Comment on Nationalism is underrated by intellectuals in ~humanities

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Do you have anything to support this? Because, with the advancement of technology and efficiency, I only see the opposite.

    but too many still see it as a "necessary evil" to insure we still have janitors, garbage collectors, and miners.

    Do you have anything to support this? Because, with the advancement of technology and efficiency, I only see the opposite.

    1 vote
  17. Comment on Adobe plans to make Photoshop on the web free to everyone, beta in Canada in ~design

    JakeTheDog
    Link Parent
    Yes! When I first bought Affinity Designer for my iPad, and then found out they had a desktop version, I had to do a triple take because I couldn't believe how powerful and complete it was, and...

    Yes! When I first bought Affinity Designer for my iPad, and then found out they had a desktop version, I had to do a triple take because I couldn't believe how powerful and complete it was, and all just for a one-time payment of a few bucks. I really looked hard to find the fine print (which was not there). I wonder if that's what a revolution feels like.

    2 votes