hellomondays t1_je2keu4 wrote

I mean, their cell phone tower expert testified that overstated his testimony in the trial and DNA evidence later exonerated Syed. This is on top of a brady violation that was the thing that got him over the finish line. I think the prosecution made a good faith effort, they weren't trying to railroad him, but they made mistakes


hellomondays t1_je1rw4c wrote

I agree, that was my take away too but it's not how justice works or should work. The state's case fell apart under post-trial scrutiny, their evidence was flimsy and overstated. I rather many guilty person go free from the state not being able to prove their guilt rather than one innocent person be wrongly convicted.


hellomondays t1_je0jmni wrote

The problem is that most comments are skeptical of the wrong things, like critiquing assumed structural problems with how a research study is designed even though their assumptions aren't true or are already discussed in the article linked. A lot of criticism comes down to "I don't like what I believe is the conclusion of this study, so I will find some sort of technicality to discredit it". All said with no understanding of what the research question in the study is, the methodology used, or what limitations the researchers have already pointed out. That's not good critique and it's definitely not useful. It's freshmen intro to research methods level discourse


hellomondays t1_je0j6h2 wrote

Yeah, a lot of critical comments boil down to reading the abstract (at best) then not understanding the methodology section of a paper or being even aware of what limitations are or what the research question is and just saying something reductive and irrelevant about sample sizes or correlation fallacies.


hellomondays t1_jamki3h wrote

>Research by Strakowski et al. (66, 67) has shown there to be a clinician overemphasis on the relevance of psychotic symptoms and an underemphasis on mood-related symptoms in the diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in African Americans. This pattern was also found in a more recent study conducted by Gara et al. (39), which showed that, when compared with Non-Latino Whites, African Americans who screened positive for major depression (moderately severe to severe depression) were significantly more likely to receive a misdiagnosis of schizophrenia. Gara et al. (68) found no significant difference between blind ratings for the severity of depressive and manic symptoms between African American and White individuals; however, African American patients were assigned higher ratings of psychosis. This suggests that in Black patients, clinicians tend to overemphasize psychotic symptoms, and diagnoses may be “skewed” toward schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, even though they exhibit similar levels of depressive and manic symptoms as White individuals (68). Misdiagnosing patients through the influence of bias and stereotypes can harm patients psychologically or socially (14), as per Figure 2.

I've seen this a lot on treatment teams working at short term hospitals. Symptoms more congruent with severe mood disorders being determined to be from psychosis and being given treatment as such. Then just confusion by psychiatrists when the medication isn't working and they need to switch it up.


hellomondays t1_j9b3olb wrote

It looks like they relied on pre-existing information in the healthcare system when recruiting, which of course doesn't rule out misdiagnosed BPD(a disorder that is thought to be over-diagnosed in women). But it does give some rigor to their selection. Furthermore they seem to have done thorough assessment for ADHD:

>Following recruitment, all participants were screened for ADHD regardless of if they had already had a pre-established diagnosis. To establish a baseline diagnosis of ADHD, we used the parent-administered Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, 4th ed. (DISC-IV) [55] and SNAP rating scale [52], Hinshaw, [54] for the diagnostic algorithm). Comparison girls could not meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD on either measure. Some comparison girls met criteria for internalizing disorders (3.4%) or disruptive behavior disorders (6.8%) at baseline, yet our goal was not to match ADHD participants on comorbid conditions but instead to obtain a representative comparison group. Exclusion criteria included intellectual disability, pervasive developmental disorders, psychosis, overt neurological disorder, lack of English spoken at home, and medical problems preventing summer camp participation. The final sample included 228 girls with ADHD-Combined presentation (n = 93) and ADHD-Inattentive presentation (n = 47), plus an age- and ethnicity-matched comparison sample (n = 88). Participants were ethnically diverse (53% White, 27% African American, 11% Latina, 9% Asian American), reflecting the composition of the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990’s. Family income was slightly higher than the median local household income in the mid-1990s, yet income and educational attainment of families were highly variable, ranging from professional families to those receiving public assistance. On average, parents reported being married and living together (65.8%) at the baseline assessment.

That said, they admit that the choice focus on psychometrics to utilize the entirity of the instrument they used to measure them, instead of sperating the predictor domains of hyperactivity vs. impulsivity is potentially limiting. Though they encourage more research into that:

> Fifth, we did not separate predictor symptom domains of hyperactivity vs. impulsivity, as psychometrics are superior when using the full 9-item Hyperactivity/Impulsivity scale. As well, this measure is more consistent with the DSM’s layout of symptoms. Although we support the separation of theses symptoms in future research—see the excellent national analysis by Tiger et al. [27]—we elected to include the full 9-item scale.


hellomondays t1_j9atz9i wrote

I work in a forensic hospital: it's a fairly low distraction environment but we do a mindfulness hour and a more involved meditation hour each once a week. My individuals seem to like those groups the most, it helps them "reset" from stressful court hearings and evaluations or when a processing group unzips a little too much.

If mindfulness is your jam, I highly recommend looking into more advanced forms of meditation, both for emotional well being and growth.


hellomondays t1_j8eyn8o wrote

Yes, men and women see themselves differently. Again, gender equality by the metrics they use is largely concerned with material equality. That doesn't preclude social factors from influencing how gender roles are conceptualized and expressed. If what you're interpreting from these studies is true, that there is a natural drive to the exclusion of all other motivators in vocational choice based on gender, there would be uniformity in all cultures across the globe when controlled for material concerns, which a weak correlation at best.

Edit to get lengthy: When dealing with a paper about the relationship between "gender equality" and "sex/gender differences," it is important not to assume that the tool used measured what people think it measures. Gender equality indexes tend to be tools which serve a particular purpose (most often political), and there are many conceptual and operational issues which have been raised by researchers (e.g. see Bericat, 2012, Hawken & Munck, 2013, Permanyer, 2015). As Boulicault points out, we should ask ourselves:

>In other words, is it a valid and reliable way to quantify the phenomenon of gender equality?

>The answer to this question depends on the construct definition, i.e. on how “gender equality” is defined. The UN defines gender equality as the “full equality of rights and opportunities between men and women.” However, between the ten words of this definition lie a plethora of details and complications. What does it mean in practice for men and women to have “full equality of rights and opportunities”? Does it matter whether men and women feel equal or is it enough that they have equal rights and opportunities? Should the equality of rights and opportunities be understood differently in different domains, for example in healthcare vs. politics? These kinds of questions have been heavily debated, leading to the identification of different dimensions and definitions of gender equality.

>These complexities are reflected in the ways gender equality is measured. One reason that so many gender equality measures exist (and that these measures are compound indices rather than uni-dimensional indicators) is precisely because gender equality is complex and can be conceptualized and defined, and therefore measured, in many different ways. As such, rather than seeing all these measures as strictly competing, it’s helpful to think of them as different tools, each suited to measuring different constructs or dimensions of gender equality. For instance, if you want to measure gender equality within social institutions, you won’t want to use the GGGI, which is intended to measure gender equality across four broad domains. Instead, an index like SIGI -- which is specifically created to measure gender equality (and gender discrimination) in social institutions -- would be the better tool for the job. In other words, just like you would use a thermometer over a meter stick to measure water temperature, you would use SIGI over the GGGI to measure gender equality in social institutions.

These indexes tend to measure achievement outcomes in particular dimensions of interest, such as "political empowerment" (think the proportion and distribution of men and women in politics). It is worthwhile to highlight the fact that Guiso et al. (2008) use the GGI, but explicitly think of it as "women's emancipation (GGI)."

There are two things to keep in mind here. First, not all of these dimensions may be relevant to specific outcomes. As Else-Quest et al. (2010) remark:

>Some aspects of gender equity may be more germane to math achievement than others; for example, equal access to formal schooling (at all levels) surely has a profound impact on girls’ math skills, but women’s greater life expectancy is probably less relevant.

Second, there is the issue of the concept of gender itself. For many, the research question is whether sociocultural factors associated with gender (gender attitudes, norms, stereotypes, ...) contribute to societal sex/gender differences in outcomes. As Noll explains:

>Understanding gender norms and stereotypes is critical to understanding why gender equality and gender neutrality are not the same concepts. Norms, attitudes, and stereotypes about gender give people information about what is typical and/or desirable in their social context and influence their preferences, beliefs, and behavior. Psychological research has repeatedly demonstrated that gender stereotypes and norms matter for how people conduct their lives and that they contribute to gender differences, and that gender stereotypes and norms are robust even in societies with high gender equality.

Being more "gender equal" does not necessarily mean that, for example, there are less gender stereotypes, that boys and girls are raised in the same manner, etc. For instance, Breda et al. (2020) argue:

>This means that countries that have eliminated the most the male-primacy ideology or “vertical gender norms” regarding women access to the labor market or even leadership positions are also countries that have developed more “horizontal essentialist norms” regarding women’s and men’s appropriate skills, behaviors, or emotions.

Therefore, countries which are and/or have become more "gender equal" over time do not necessarily have, inversely and for instance, weaker gender stereotypes about boys of the sorts which are related with boys' achievements in literacy (e.g. see Retelsdorf et al., 2015, Pansu et al., 2016, Heyder et al., 2017).


hellomondays t1_j8exv9v wrote

>Men and women are different. The science says so. Accept it.

Yes obviously. But gender equality does not equal the absence of gender roles, you're reading too far to say that it's only biological or 'natural" (whatever that means, weird word for a scientist to use). Look at the measurements they use for gender equality. You're assuming that gender roles are only enforced externally for some reason and that if there is internal motivation, they don't exist or that internal motivation is influenced by social factors.


hellomondays t1_j8ewkgs wrote

Go reread, you're conflating equality with the absence of roles and gender expectations. Self-expression can still be gendered or influence distinct personality traits, which is what the findings of the first two papers state. Biological factors play a role but they're to the exclusion of social factors. I'm not talking about the social role hypothesis' theory that changes would narrow, but rather that social factors influence how vocational gender roles are created from multiple directions. B eing more "gender equal" does not necessarily mean that there are less gender stereotypes, that boys and girls are raised in the same manne

That's not really what those papers are about, perhaps that's the confusion?


hellomondays t1_j8evoqv wrote

Never said anything different. Just that, like your articles show, there's social factors that influence career choice. countries which are and/or have become more "gender equal" over time do not necessarily have weaker gender stereotypes about boys of the sorts which are related with boys' achievements in literacy, for example


hellomondays t1_j8e9tb3 wrote

It's worth mentioning that Auguste D. the woman from the case study that would lead to the "discovery" of Alzhiemer's was only 50 when she first became ill. Even from the start of scientific inquiry into this disease, there's a lot more going on than just old age.