My point was that it is possible (and typical) to achieve statistical significance with a much smaller sample size. Given the cost, you tend not to collect more subjects than necessary.
Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!
IAAFR (I am an fMRI researcher) and I can say without reservation that this comment is blatantly incorrect. As with any statistical analsysis, you take into account the variability in the data when making statistical tests. You have some idea of what to expect based on chance alone, and you must exceed that by a tremendous amount. With fMRI we tend to be excessively conservative with statistics, since we do a statistical test at every voxel in the image acquired -- it takes very high levels of statistical parameters to be accepted as a significant result.
45 subjects is actually a very large sample for an imaging study (fMRI is very expensive). Most studies use 12-16 people.
As for the term "volunteers", anyone who participates in research in the U.S. is a volunteer. We cannot and should not force people
to participate in research studies. The term volunteer does not mean they were not compensated for their time.
The real "first cause" of traffic jams is differences in driving decisions and style
No, that is a property inherent to the complex system we are trying to explain. It is not an event that sets off a particular condition of that system (traffic jam).
What fMRI measures is changes in blood oxygenation, which we have good reason to believe is related to changes in brain activity. Oxygenated and deoxygenated blood have different magnetic properties, and this difference can be picked up with MRI. When a brain region becomes more active, the proportion of oxy to deoxy hemoglobin increases. This change in blood flow is quite slow, peaking about 6 seconds after the onset of neural activity. So fMRI is not able to detect the fast oscillatory patterns of neurons.
That can be achieved with EEG, which allows the recording of neuronal oscillations, and frequency analysis as you suggest. However EEG, performed at the scalp, is not going to pick up a deep structure like the nucleus accumbens.
Can the EEG be "entrained" by an external signal? Maybe to some degree, but not in a focal way, at least at this point. The best way we have for noninvasively affecting brain activity at this point is probably transcranial magnetic stimulation, but that can't be done from a distance without your knowledge, and is still quite crude.
In short, for the time being the best way for Best Buy to manipulate you is through visual advertisement and by talking to you.
That's why you have to bring the supermarket into the MRI.
What's cool about this study is that people were making decisions to buy with real money. They actually received the products they chose, for a price. fMRI studies, like much of cognitive science, often gravitates towards abstracted situations so that they can be tightly controlled. What's exciting is that now we are moving more towards scanning real-life situations.
Are wrenches as effective against fMRI machines as they are against regular MRI machines?;)
I know you're joking, but I thought I would point out that it's not a different machine. Functional MRI uses the same
MRI scanner, just different pulse sequences and techniques for processing the data. So yes, a wrench will do if you want to take out
your local fMRI research lab, but please don't.:)
There is actually a law, the The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 which requires recipients of federal grants to maintain a drug-free workplace. Part of the whole war on drugs nonsense.
At any ate, the point of this study is that some people do not emotionally differentiate between virtual actions and real actions.
I disagree that this is the point of this study.
We know that people do not differentiate between virtual actions and real actions. This is largely because the way we understand the actions of others is by simulating them ourselves, so whether we are simulating a real or virtual action we are experiencing the same thing. (See mirror neurons for more about motor simulation).
This was used as a tool to retest the Miligram experiment. Culture has changed quite a bit since the original experiments. At the time a guy in a lab coat was next to god - you did not question your doctor. People did not have access to the internet full of information on which to self-diagnose etc. In the late 50s American culture was the height of conformity. The question this study really speaks to is, given how much we have changed culturally over the past 40 years, are we still just as obedient to authority?
It showed that some people would cause harm (not kill) another person when instructed to do so by an authority figure.
According to Blass (milgram biographer & social psychologist), "the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%, regardless of time or location".
One problem with tracing something complex like this back to a single event that was supposedly the cause of the "chain reaction" is that the event you choose was itself caused by something. For example, from the scenario used in the article, the event that triggers everything:
It is a clear, sunny day and the roads contain no obvious hazards that would cause problems with traffic. Traffic on this particular highway is pretty thick, but it is flowing smoothly and steadily. One of the drivers, let's say a man in a red car, decides that people in his lane are moving much too slowly for his taste. He quickly changes lanes in an attempt to get to a quicker moving lane. He fails to properly check his mirrors and cuts off another driver in the lane beside him. This forces that driver to apply his brakes to avoid getting clipped by the red car.
The story is that this man's decision caused an entire traffic jam. But his decision was a result of his interaction with the traffic conditions. One might find that given that traffic is moving at a certain slowness, there is some probability that any individual will find it too slow and make such a decision. Perhaps as traffic gets slower, that probability goes up. So what caused the traffic jam, this person's decision or the conditions that led to it?
If Penguins were featherless, covered in oozing mucous, constantly moaned in pain and had soulless empty sockets where their eyes should be we wouldn't care if they disappeared from the earth or not.
Thus the selective advantage of "cuteness". It the same mechanism used by our young to ensure we want to take care of them.
I think this shows something slightly different. Not that there is something in our nature which compels us to concentrate our wealth, but that rather it is something of a forced move -- even when our nature inclines us not to arrange our institutions in this way, obstacles arrange themselves such that this choice is compelled.
Part of this week's ruling was that the IBM-SCO case will not be heard until Novell vs SCO is taken care of. So the
trial date for IBM/SCO has not been set yet:
It appears that judicial economy and the interests of all the parties will be best served by trying the Novell case-set to begin on September 17, 2007-prior to the instant action. After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action. The pending dispositive motions will be heard on the following dates: Thursday, March 1, 2007 (3:00pm-5:00pm); Monday, March 5, 2007 (2:30pm-5:00pm); and Wednesday, March 7, 2007 (2:30pm-5:00pm). The parties are directed to submit a proposal by no later than January 12, 2007, setting forth the most efficient sequence for hearing the motions, with both parties having equal time on each motion.
He's not in the vault, true, but he is in the public part of the bank itself, not some separate administrative office building. The people he is interacting with are the same people who have access to the vault and must be aware enough to protect it.
(To find out more, I sent a colleague into the bank to inquire about a checking account. While in the bank she took notice of the various pieces of office equipment, specifically the printers, faxes, and copiers. )
Yes, but this is a bank, not an office. They are in the business of securing money.
I think a bank requires a little more awareness on the part of the staff than most offices.
That said, these people do seem to have access to some special equipment:
"Our office at Secure Network Technologies utilizes a proximity card access system, which also serves as an employee identification badge. Conveniently, we have the machine that prints these things.
and
"Using our past experience with copier folks, we put together a giant silver briefcase on wheels, a mini-vacuum cleaner, and a few reams of paper."
So this still takes some degree of effort. Nonetheless, I would be concerned if I were running this bank.
After reading his article, it seems what was most valuable to him was not his memory or knowledge, but his meta-memory. The skill of evaluating the source and veracity of memories. Knowing why or how he knew something. His description of the final question worried me a bit, though. To quote:
I immediately had an intuition that one of the ships at the Tea Party was Dartmouth. I reflected on Dartmouth, using it as a prime. I repeated the ship's name aloud and silently to myself. Gradually, the name of another ship formed in my mind, echoing each repetition of Dartmouth: Beaver. The more I thought of Dartmouth, the more it seemed linked to Beaver, the two ships reinforcing each other within the clandestine architecture of my memory. I continued repeating both ships' names, aloud and in my mind. Dartmouth, Beaver. Beaver, Dartmouth. And then, faintly, like the reflection of the moon on a midnight lake, the name of a third ship dimly waxed upon the murk of my mind: Eleanor.
My concern here was that he had already just seen the potential answers. It sounds like he has a deeper intuition about where his memories come from and that he knew it wasn't related to the answers, but one of the obstacles to this kind of strategy is that you have just been primed with four answers, only one of which is correct. Anyway, he didn't go for it, so he was probably aware of this.
Now, there's got to be some other ways to turn this cognitive neuroscience degree into a million...
This happens only after Republican blood was spilled in the election. The blood of thousands of soldiers spilled on the battlefield didn't count for squat.
The happy side of it is, we apparently can make a difference with our voting.
I think the point is that when you get past hate and fear of homosexuality, you can see it as a healthy expression of sexual identity between consenting adults that has nothing to do with you.
That's only one way of seeing it. Being past fear and hatred does not guarantee this viewpoint. That, I think, is my main point. For example, one could argue that widespread homosexuality has consequences that range far beyond the bedroom of the individuals engaging in homosexual acts. The effects of our behavior do not confine themselves to us as individuals -- they ripple out.
When you get past the hate and fear of pedophiles, you're still left with an exploitative and unhealthy sexual relationship that's unacceptable in its own terms.
Again, not necessarily.
As others have pointed out, the definition of a minor is a legal construct to begin with. Men are bound to be attracted to developing females before the artifical line drawn by the legal system, especially since it is not drawn based on this consideration. One of the most powerful arguments the gay community made was that when nature puts you in conflict with a societal norm it is you who are the victim.
Just be aware that you are doing the same thing with language that you are worried about them doing. They are calling themselves minor-attracted adults and you are calling them child molestors. Both of these phrases are intended to cast the activity in a certain light.
I agree that we don't always need to spell out our assumptions, however in this case it was at the root of the matter.
I think it is generally accepted (at least by educated people) that homosexuals are just "wired differently"; i.e. they don't make a conscious decision to be homosexual.
If this is generally accepted, it is not because there is a perponderance of scientific evidence to suggest it. In fact we have very little clue as to the combination of genetic, experiential, social, and hormonal factors that shape sexual orientation how this interacts with culture to produce sexual identity.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that it is possible (and typical) to achieve statistical significance with a much smaller sample size. Given the cost, you tend not to collect more subjects than necessary.
45 subjects is actually a very large sample for an imaging study (fMRI is very expensive). Most studies use 12-16 people.
As for the term "volunteers", anyone who participates in research in the U.S. is a volunteer. We cannot and should not force people to participate in research studies. The term volunteer does not mean they were not compensated for their time.
History says no. Apple without Steve was not the same...
Maybe it's your definition of "city" that is different from theirs. ;)
What fMRI measures is changes in blood oxygenation, which we have good reason to believe is related to changes in brain activity. Oxygenated and deoxygenated blood have different magnetic properties, and this difference can be picked up with MRI. When a brain region becomes more active, the proportion of oxy to deoxy hemoglobin increases. This change in blood flow is quite slow, peaking about 6 seconds after the onset of neural activity. So fMRI is not able to detect the fast oscillatory patterns of neurons.
That can be achieved with EEG, which allows the recording of neuronal oscillations, and frequency analysis as you suggest. However EEG, performed at the scalp, is not going to pick up a deep structure like the nucleus accumbens.
Can the EEG be "entrained" by an external signal? Maybe to some degree, but not in a focal way, at least at this point. The best way we have for noninvasively affecting brain activity at this point is probably transcranial magnetic stimulation, but that can't be done from a distance without your knowledge, and is still quite crude.
In short, for the time being the best way for Best Buy to manipulate you is through visual advertisement and by talking to you.
That's why you have to bring the supermarket into the MRI.
What's cool about this study is that people were making decisions to buy with real money. They actually received the products they chose, for a price. fMRI studies, like much of cognitive science, often gravitates towards abstracted situations so that they can be tightly controlled. What's exciting is that now we are moving more towards scanning real-life situations.
There is actually a law, the The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 which requires recipients of federal grants to maintain a drug-free workplace. Part of the whole war on drugs nonsense.
We know that people do not differentiate between virtual actions and real actions. This is largely because the way we understand the actions of others is by simulating them ourselves, so whether we are simulating a real or virtual action we are experiencing the same thing. (See mirror neurons for more about motor simulation).
This was used as a tool to retest the Miligram experiment. Culture has changed quite a bit since the original experiments. At the time a guy in a lab coat was next to god - you did not question your doctor. People did not have access to the internet full of information on which to self-diagnose etc. In the late 50s American culture was the height of conformity. The question this study really speaks to is, given how much we have changed culturally over the past 40 years, are we still just as obedient to authority?
I think this shows something slightly different. Not that there is something in our nature which compels us to concentrate our wealth, but that rather it is something of a forced move -- even when our nature inclines us not to arrange our institutions in this way, obstacles arrange themselves such that this choice is compelled.
He's not in the vault, true, but he is in the public part of the bank itself, not some separate administrative office building. The people he is interacting with are the same people who have access to the vault and must be aware enough to protect it.
(To find out more, I sent a colleague into the bank to inquire about a checking account. While in the bank she took notice of the various pieces of office equipment, specifically the printers, faxes, and copiers. )
Yes, but this is a bank, not an office. They are in the business of securing money. I think a bank requires a little more awareness on the part of the staff than most offices.
That said, these people do seem to have access to some special equipment:
"Our office at Secure Network Technologies utilizes a proximity card access system, which also serves as an employee identification badge. Conveniently, we have the machine that prints these things.
and
"Using our past experience with copier folks, we put together a giant silver briefcase on wheels, a mini-vacuum cleaner, and a few reams of paper."
So this still takes some degree of effort. Nonetheless, I would be concerned if I were running this bank.
I'm not at all suggesting that people give up their religious convictions
Why not? That's exactly what they should do. The fact that there are convictions immutable by evidence is the problem.
Yes, clearly if the dinosaurs stopped driving Hummers sooner they would still be around.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it people.
Now, there's got to be some other ways to turn this cognitive neuroscience degree into a million...
Again, not necessarily. As others have pointed out, the definition of a minor is a legal construct to begin with. Men are bound to be attracted to developing females before the artifical line drawn by the legal system, especially since it is not drawn based on this consideration. One of the most powerful arguments the gay community made was that when nature puts you in conflict with a societal norm it is you who are the victim.
Just be aware that you are doing the same thing with language that you are worried about them doing. They are calling themselves minor-attracted adults and you are calling them child molestors. Both of these phrases are intended to cast the activity in a certain light. I agree that we don't always need to spell out our assumptions, however in this case it was at the root of the matter.
I disagree. They could both be wrong for different reasons.