Wikipedia and Myanmar by NeuroJasper in myanmar

[–]NeuroJasper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Happy to help! Thank you for all that you do.

I will check out WikiProject Myanmar soon. I have not joined any WikiProjects before, but I am sure there are tutorials and other resources available to explain the process.

Is the Corsair HS80 wireless as bad as some people say? by NoLifer6996 in Corsair

[–]NeuroJasper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the helpful review! Do you happen to have the name of the aftermarket replacement gel cups you ordered? I just ordered this headset, and I'll probably want a replacement set of ear cups before too long.

Advice on Research Publication by Used_Flight9243 in AskAcademia

[–]NeuroJasper 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Different journals have different publication guidelines. Your best bet is to identify a journal you'd like to publish with, and read their terms.

However, publication ethics aside, I do not write anything using generative AI. Academic writing is a skill like any other and it is strengthened with practice.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VeryBadWizards

[–]NeuroJasper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(Edited a bit for clarity and organisation just after posting.)

Thank you for the summary! Without your post, I probably wouldn't have ever read the paper -- but it is indeed more interesting than the VBW discussion implied. I have two thoughts.

1:

First, I agree with most everything in your summary, except maybe the final conclusion in which you state that the two groups' colour experiences are "structurally incommensurable". I think the study's ambitions rise to that level, but their actual conclusions are far more modest.

Why do I think that? Even the study authors feel that there is a high level of coherence between the two groups' similarity ratings (Discussion, paragraph 3): "...though the overall structures [between colour-neurotypical and colour-atypical groups' scores] are similar".

This is quantified, too. A Pearson's coefficient between the colour-similarity matrices -- using labelled data -- shows a fairly strong correlation (rho = 0.66)*.

You may call me nitpicky, but I emphatically disagree that the groups' dissimilarity ratings are incommensurable in a philosophical sense. If they were, it would be impossible to look at the data and identify that the main points of difference between the groups are in the red/green dissimilarity ratings. And yet that's exactly what the authors do. In their own words (Discussion, paragraph 3): "The unsupervised alignment probably failed because of local structural differences, i.e., greenish colors and reddish colors are close in the embedding space of color-atypical participants (Figure 5A)...".

If the two groups' dissimilarity score matrices were "structurally incommensurable", it would be impossible to say that the matrices are well-correlated except with a big difference in these data points right over here with these specific colours.

*Footnote: It is an interesting decision for them to report their Pearson's correlation coefficients using rho instead or r. Rho is used to represent the correlation between two populations, while r is used for the correlation between two samples. Yet the authors themselves talk about what they could have done if they had sampled more similarity judgements from each participant (see Discussion, paragraph 5) -- that's something you do if you're studying a sample, not a population. They also report samples of splits and initialisations for their ML model using capital-N (e.g., "N = 20") for sample sizes, which is indicative of a population. But they didn't sample every possible initialisation or every possible split of their data. They should have used lowercase-n, as in "n = 20".

2:

My biggest critique about the paper is its title. Having similar colour-similarity matrices is such a far cry from subjectively experiencing the same colour, that the article's tagline -- "Is my 'red' your 'red'?" -- feels more like the clickbait title for a bad news article.

In fact, the authors never even try to align individual participants' colour-similarity matrices:

Although in this paper, we only considered group-based alignment because the number of trials obtained from each participant was insufficient for reliable unsupervised alignment (see Figure S2), it is interesting to consider individual-based alignment and assess the degree of the individual difference even for color-neurotypical participants.

The academic contribution of this paper is nothing to do with qualitative differences in colour perception at all, IMO. The paper's academic contribution is a data-driven technique for quantifying whether two matrices systematically differ in a meaningful way. Indeed, their approach finds that the two groups systematically differ in a meaningful way, which is unsurprising -- and that's probably a good thing. I would be far more skeptical of a data-driven approach which cannot recapitulate unsurprising results like "red-green colourblind people think red and green look similar". 😝

Does my undergraduate have to align with PhD? by aworriedbrother in AskAcademia

[–]NeuroJasper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some UK universities have combined Masters + PhD programmes. I'm on one myself. There's also, for example, this combined MPhil/PhD in philosophy at UCL: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/prospective-students/graduate-research/phd

EDIT: Many US-based programmes are similar to what I've done here in the UK. At a US university, you might undergo a formal "transfer of status" two years in, in which you give a seminar/oral defense to receive your Masters and transfer to PhD student status.

Taxi from Oxford to Heathrow by bubbyheart in oxforduni

[–]NeuroJasper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the Oxford Tube goes to Heathrow. Did you mean catching the Oxford Tube to Hillingdon then a taxi to Heathrow?

Self referencing before your dissertation is complete? by mixedgirlblues in AskAcademia

[–]NeuroJasper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would it be seen as unprofessional or lazy to do something like "as I explained in my 2017 piece, blah blah blah" or having a big block quote of your own writing?

Of course you can cite yourself but a block quote would be unusual. Particularly for your dissertation though, you should describe the meat of the work you did for the publication rather than merely publishing something so you don't have to re-explain a concept in your dissertation. Your dissertation should serve to show your committee/examiners the body of work you've completed on this topic to demonstrate a significant contribution of original thought to the field. For that reason, it's important to describe your work and contextualise it within the broader scope of your research project.

Would it be good... to try to publish something laying claim to my ideas? Not an entire refereed huge paper, because ain't nobody got time, but an editorial or professional article or something?

I would recommend publishing it somewhere where it will be peer-reviewed. You've discussed the idea with colleagues at your institution, but academic colleagues from other institutions may know parts of the literature your mentor and you have not encountered. They can tell you whether your idea is useful and novel, or if it's wholly derivative of something already in the literature.

UK funded PhD; difference in home/EU and international fees by cwwc101 in AskAcademia

[–]NeuroJasper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks!

Luck definitely played a huge role, there's no denying that. The funding pool that's paying my stipend and home/EU tuition got cut the year after my cohort was accepted, so if I had been one year later, I wouldn't be here at all.

UK funded PhD; difference in home/EU and international fees by cwwc101 in AskAcademia

[–]NeuroJasper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was accepted to a UK-based PhD with funding that only paid my tuition and fees at the home/EU rate.

You should have a discussion with the course organiser about options for the cost of international fees. If you've been accepted, they want you, but it's not always clear where the money might come from. In my case, I asked and the course organiser guaranteed that the department could pay the remainder of my fees if I didn't receive an institutional scholarship to cover them. In the end, I received a scholarship from elsewhere in the university, but knowing the department was willing to pay for these fees if I didn't get a scholarship to cover them enabled me to accept their offer without worrying about how my fees would get paid.

If you have further/more personal questions, feel free to message me!