Deconstructing the most sensationalistic recent findings in Human Brain Imaging, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Psychopharmacology
posted by The Neurocritic @ 1:31 AM
7 comments
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Born in West Virginia in 1980, The Neurocritic embarked upon a roadtrip across America at the age of thirteen with his mother. She abandoned him when they reached San Francisco and The Neurocritic descended into a spiral of drug abuse and prostitution. At fifteen, The Neurocritic's psychiatrist encouraged him to start writing as a form of therapy.
Subscribe!
Subscribe to comments
Subscribe to The Neurocritic by Email
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
7 Comments:
I say take your time and get to know.
Rushing will only have you miss many things about your partner. Slow down and enjoy.
http://www.onlinedatingedge.com/2008/07/speed-dating-101-youtube-video.html
Ever have someone act like this?
:)
Hey Neurocritic, many readers may not realize that both images on this post are spoofs. I mean - I subscribe to Current Directions in Psychological Science and seeing the familiar green banner photoshopped in that way was really disconcerting.
Its a pretty big slur against this journal.
So what is the "neurocriticism" of this approach to studying romantic relationships?
By posting it without comment but with the slurs against the journal, it amounts to a silent condemnation.
Do you disagree with the authors' point that their method has increased ecological validity compared to traditional self-report methods (and superior identification of variables compared to archival methods like data-mining printed personal ads)?
Of do you question the whole goal of using scientific methods (systematic observation, hypothesis testing) to study human mating/courtship behavior?
Hey HumanProject, I don't think it's a slur at all, because the journal published an article entitled Speed Dating that explained "how scholars can employ speed-dating and its straightforward variants to study topics relevant to diverse subfields of psychological science." In essence, Current Directions in Psychological Science endorsed a new line of studies based on speed dating, which is a recent, highly artificial cultural construct.
As such, it is a broad target for humor and spoofs, even by those who run online dating services (link from Stephen David, the commenter above) - watch "Speed Dating 101."
I presented the abstract in its entirety so readers could form their own opinions (and a link to the article for those who have access). I also did a PubMed search and featured all of the relevant articles that came up with "speed dating" as a search term.
Oh, and thanks for the compliment about my Photoshop skills...I thought the blurriness on the lower banner of the journal cover would be a dead giveaway. ;-)
Why do these anti-humor responses remind us of the reactions to this week’s New Yorker cover, lampooning the Rovian rumor-mill’s campaign of lies about the Obamas (he’s a muslim radical, she’s Angela Davis, etc.)? The “silent condemnation” is “disconcerting”? To mock is to “slur”?
The old adage “If you need to have the joke explained, it won’t be funny anyway” misses the point, because these true believers “get” the explanation all right, they just don’t get the humor. What is immune to laughter is the sacrosanct: in one case, the honor of our candidate is too precious to have even spurious attacks dignified by satire, and in the other, the “ecological validity” of “using scientific methods … to study human mating/courtship behavior” appears to be the sacred ox that you have gored.
As you correctly elucidate, “a recent, highly artificial cultural construct” has been confused with a categorical “human behavior.” Leave Social Cognition to study this particular confusion (we suspect some sort of "evolutionary psychology" gremlin is at work)…. You keep up the excellent criticism!
Thanks, Ludica. I didn't actually mean to be that controversial...
Interestingly, Obama himself had a more measured response to the New Yorker cover than most of his supporters:
Obama: New Yorker Cover Probably Fuels Misconceptions
ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Senator Obama calls the controversial New Yorker cover an "attempt at satire" that “probably fuels some misconceptions" about him.
. . .
"I know it was the New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon," Obama told CNN's Larry King, "and that's why we've got the First Amendment."
I agree. I think most of the time people tend to be very social. There are a lot of misconception about the speed dating event due to false media representation.
One thing I found helpful is how quickly women make their decision about guys who they meet.
(http://speeddatingmanifesto.com/?p=12)
Post a Comment
<< Home