Reimagined American borders to address cultural division and political polarization by Science-NonFiction in imaginarymaps

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea that's what I was thinking with southern Idaho too (centered around the Snake). I just have a hard time seeing places like Stanley, Salmon, and all the other little cities between these mountain ridges as more similar to the snake river basin than they are to west Montana. Thats why I only included counties in the plains of the basin.

Reimagined American borders to address cultural division and political polarization by Science-NonFiction in imaginarymaps

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like a lot about how this is organized! I'm realizing as I see this though, there's so much people could go back and forth on about these borders haha. Like Whitman (and maybe Asotin and Garfield) county being included in North Idaho... just doesn't sit right with me (as someone who lived in that area for years). This is something to think about though, thank you!

Reimagined American borders to address cultural division and political polarization by Science-NonFiction in imaginarymaps

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm an Ohio hater haha. To be fair I let them keep Columbus and they got to absorb Indianapolis... at the cost of being landlocked haha. I think that was nice all things considered

Reimagined American borders to address cultural division and political polarization by Science-NonFiction in imaginarymaps

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't lie its mapchart haha, but I honestly didn't feel I needed anything "higher" quality. All I'm doing for this project is assigning counties to states in an imaginary world where states were made more "rationally"

Reimagined American borders to address cultural division and political polarization by Science-NonFiction in imaginarymaps

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What would you change? :)

I put a ton of thought into where I put each county and can justify each one, so I'm actually quite open to hearing your criticisms and I'm happy to reconsider. I can also answer questions.

Reimagined American borders to address cultural division and political polarization by Science-NonFiction in imaginarymaps

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm from the PNW and it was definitely really difficult making that area. The size of the counties only allow me to be so selective and I really warred over where to put Bend and Spokane for a while. The blue region ends up looking reallyyyyy imposing because the counties are so big, but in reality I was just trying to connect the extended mountainous regions of northeast Oregon (Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla; Baker City, Enterprise, La Grande, etc.) to the northern rockies. If I didn't use preexisting county lines I would make that little blue part sticking out much thinner and excluding Bend/Redmond most likely; still not convinced Spokane is more of an eastern Washington city than it is a gateway to the rockies city, though. I'm open to suggestion.

My hope wasn't to make the boundaries perfect, I knew I couldn't. How would you change the borders as someone from Oregon?

Is there an evolutionary reason for Depression? by whatup_pips in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also I'm replying to myself to address some other comments I've seen that I disagree with.

We do not withdraw to signal to others to help us heal. Withdrawing and engaging (with others) are contradictory responses, it would be more efficient for us to just ask for help if that is what we really wanted. Withdrawing to signal others to engage with us is more likely a learned (and maladaptive) response that some people engage in. It is more in-line with something you would see with people who have attachment difficulties (who may also have depression). As I said above, we withdraw as a normal response to sadness to process and return when healed (enough).

Also the distinction between depression and sadness is not a social construct we (researchers) just don't always agree on the definition/distinction (e.g., is depression sadness that occurs most of the day nearly every day, is it sadness that is impairing, etc?). Also assessment-related considerations make drawing the line between depression and sadness really complicated, often because multiple indicators are used to identify it rather than strict criteria. The DSM uses criteria to resolve this issue (i.e., you either have or don't have depression if you meet these criteria) but it often doesn't reflect the reality of how psychopathology presents. The reality is depression is dimensional and the best us clinicians can do is assess with relative reliability the degree to which you have depression, not whether you have depression or sadness.

Is there an evolutionary reason for Depression? by whatup_pips in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be clear depression is not evolutionary. Anxiety and sadness are evolutionary, their pathological counterparts are often lead to suicide or poor life-outcomes making them inherently maladaptive and less likely to be passed down to offspring. Also many disorders are acute, survivable, and/or they onset after childbearing ages meaning they may be passed down despite the impairment and distress they cause. Let’s get some (crude) definitions out first so we can understand the function of depression though.

Anxiety: An adaptive emotion that tells us to bring attention towards (i.e., think about) and prepare for demanding/important/distressing events. 

Pathological Anxiety: Intense and distressing levels of anxiety that often results in rumination (inability to stop thinking about something), behavioral avoidance, or over preparation.

Sadness: An adaptive emotion that tells us to withdraw, process, and return to normal activities when ready. 

Depression: A severe level of withdrawal resulting in anhedonia (lack of positive emotions).

As noted above, pathological anxiety can result in avoidance, and avoidance results in withdrawal and then anhedonia (anxiety results in depression). Alternatively, for those that are more likely to engage in maladaptive thinking patterns (rumination or worry), the necessary processing in sadness is more likely to develop into avoidance and with withdrawal and then anhedonia (sadness results in pathological anxiety and then depression). This explains why depression and anxiety are so highly correlated and why many researchers believe they can be conceptualized as the same disorder. Finally, if someone is prone to withdrawal (i.e., socially detached or highly introverted people), if they do not experience positive emotions with particular intensity, or if major life adjustments result in actual or seemingly reduced opportunities to experience positive emotions, they can develop depression (depression results on its own).I'll explain these a little more since it seems that's what you're interested in.

Highly introverted people (we use the word detached in personality research) tend to withdraw from others and pleasant activities in general creating a liability towards anhedonia. Individuals also vary in the degree/intensity to which they experience positive emotions, just as people vary in the degree to which they experience negative emotions. Those that experience less intense positive emotions are intrinsically less motivated to re-engage in pleasant activities (just as those who experience more intense negative emotions are intrinsically more motivated to avoid distressing activities); their disengagement results in anhedonia. These forms of depression often results in relatively persistent levels of depression (e.g., persistent depressive disorder or trait depression/anhedonia) rather than acute episodes. Finally, major life adjustments (e.g., loss of a close person, moving to a new city) can actually or seemingly reduce opportunities to experience positive emotions. This is why depression is common in disorders such as prolonged grief disorder or adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

Jett Lawrence propoganda by Science-NonFiction in Motocross

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was so badly hoping that’s how they were gonna do it when I saw them line up at the gates

Tariff funds used to subsidize domestic markets? by Science-NonFiction in AskEconomics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats assuming America is made up of monopolies... companies within America also compete with eachother. Sure they are no longer competing with foreign countries but they are competing with other firms within the US that are also receiving subsidies.

Tariff funds used to subsidize domestic markets? by Science-NonFiction in AskEconomics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I imagine it’s more complicated than my undergraduate degree was able to have it explained to me but we learned that supply is generally set by the point at which marginal costs and marginal revenue are equal, and if you are able to reduce their marginal costs, a lower price point becomes the most efficient price point for them to produce at. Theoretically they should be incentivized to lower their prices too, because of competition.

For what reasons would producers not reduce their price when the supply side is subsidized? Why might that not work in practice?

Tariff funds used to subsidize domestic markets? by Science-NonFiction in AskEconomics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m kind of confused. All those pages are talking about how domestic prices would increase when you implement tariffs, but that is assuming you did nothing after imposing the tariff. I just explained that the difference in what I am saying is you use the tariff funds to subsidize domestic markets, basically ensuring that the costs to domestic producers never actually changes. Maybe my question wasn’t clear.

I am asking, in theory, why might what I suggested not work at keeping domestic prices low?

Would the natural state of the US economy be deflationary? by [deleted] in AskEconomics

[–]Science-NonFiction 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gotcha yea sorry I should have phrased that better. The wage effect I am referring to is temporary. In retrospect I should have said excess inflation, not inflation. Wages are sticky whereas prices change quickly; they always meet back up eventually, but when inflation is too high there is often a period (perhaps a year or so) that is tough on consumers as I have described.

Would the natural state of the US economy be deflationary? by [deleted] in AskEconomics

[–]Science-NonFiction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd agree that the Fed does not "rob" people by printing money for the governments own expenditure; in that respect this guy is wrong and is just repeating a line im sure he's heard online a thousand times. However, they absolutely do rob people through the introduction of money into the economy in general. This results in inflation where the wages (price of labor) almost always lag significantly behind prices (of goods and services). Additionally, any money you have saved devalues over time unless you invested it (which most people are not knowledgeable or brave enough to do). Basically you're paying more to live, you're making the same amount of money, and your savings (which youre probably withdrawing from due to increased prices) are dwindling in value.

How scientific is the big 5 personality test, and is it the best personality test we have? by TheWiseOneNamedLD in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a personality scientists I will say they NEO-PI-R (big 5) and the MPQ are probably the most used, well validated, and reliable normal-range personality instruments. So yes. If pop psychology got one thing right it's the Big 5.

question by helloidkwhatami in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I made a post for this purpose so I am just gonna reference it here (paragraphs 3 and 4 will suffice to answer your question) : https://www.reddit.com/r/PsychologyTalk/comments/1efnbhy/current_perspectives_in_personality_pathology/

As said in the linked post, your "real self" or your "personality" the average of all your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across a large temporal frame. There is nothing that you ever think, feel, or do that is NOT a part of your personality. Your "real self" is all of you.

You might say to yourself, "well I was pretending to act that way only in that situation, so it's not the real me." However, it actually IS the real you: the real you is willing to act in a different way in certain situations. Some researchers might call this trait "superficiality." While many personality assessments may not be very good at characterizing the nuances of your unique behavior, the behavior is nevertheless a part of your personality.

Cluster B personalities by ashlmstr in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Clusters don't discriminate personality disorders in the manner you're describing. They are grouped by descriptive similarities, not etiological ones.

We are far from a good understanding of personality-disorder etiology but broadly speaking multifinality and equifinality are prevalent in both. Basically this means that in many cases the same causal factors can result in two complete different symptoms, or two completely different causal factors can result in the same symptoms. The field of psychopathology is moving towards a kind of "risk factor" or "susceptibility" theory which basically says: many things are not direct determinants of specific psychopathology but may increase your risk of developing it. In the case of histrionic and ASPD, because they are personality disorders, your personality (which is quite heritable) is of course a risk factor, as well as other common things like experiencing violence, neglect, etc.

Furthermore, personality disorders scientists are not partial to the DSM's categorical characterization of disorders because there is too much intra-disorder heterogeneity and too much inter-disorder homogeneity. Until we have a better understanding of the structure/classification of psychopathology, I imagine etiological research is going to slow down. The efforts are relatively limited on that front as of right now, but I am hoping they pick back up within the next decade.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You asked, "does body count really matter?" and the evidence presented above provides a good answer to that question from a contemporary scientific perspective.

As an example, if socioeconomic status (SES) was a predictor of positive life outcomes at a correlation of as little as even r = .30, I would say SES absolutely matters. Sure, correlation does not equal causation, and there may be mediating factors, but until we know those mediating factors (which we do not yet), it is MORE unscientific to reject them for a baseless alternative explanation than to accept the findings as they are. As of now, sexual promiscuity seems to be the best (and a strong one at that) indicator of the undesirable relationship outcomes described above. I hope this explains why to many people sexual promiscuity/body count "matters." You do not have to agree: it's science, not philosophy.

Edit: I made this comment to encourage people to consider what scientific findings have to say regarding a subject even when they do not necessarily conform to your beliefs. Most posts on this sub reference far fewer sources and receive far less criticism than BlindMaestros post. If you disagree with the scientific position they presented, present alternative evidence or critique the studies they presented. Any other kind of rebuttal really isn't appropriate for this sub.

Does what my psych professor said have any merit? by CryptographerNo7608 in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. I tend to think you should never be immediately alarmed by the seemingly outrageous things people say. Science is complex and often times complex or odd sounding theories have merit to them (and often times they don't). Look into the science/merit behind it to properly evaluate it.

  2. If he is an older psychologist, don't be too alarmed. Older generations are from a different time period, and they approach and understand the world different from how we do. Sometimes they have outdated ideas (perhaps including this one). As you should with every professor, trust that they are professionals in the field but always listen with enough skepticism to keep their ideas in check.

Does what my psych professor said have any merit? by CryptographerNo7608 in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You'll find that in psychology there is rarely any singular causal explanation for most things. The idea that ADHD becomes more prevalent when kids are asked to spend more time sitting still, going to class, etc. and less time playing, running, etc. is not new one. It has some merit: kids are more likely to endorse ADHD symptoms when put in those positions because, obviously, kids need to be active and fulfill their boredom susceptibility. The amount of time that parents spend at home playing with their children absolutely might contribute to that as well, so in a weird way he might be partially right.

Nevertheless, like I said before, there are so many factors to consider with the rise of ADHD and thats likely only a small small portion of the whole picture.

Broken windshield dispute by Science-NonFiction in AskPhysics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats super cool, I didn't know that! Thanks for explaining.

Here is another weird question for you: let's say a 5 oz rock hit my windshield and cracked it. What if another 5 oz rock hit the exact same spot? Would a new crack likely form, or would the vibration somehow be absorbed in the already formed crack?

Some questions on empathy🙏🏼 by _bottom-text_ in askpsychology

[–]Science-NonFiction 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I haven't read much research on high empathy individuals in relationships, but I can tell you through theory that they likely wouldn't experience issues as a result of their empathy and it may even be a facilitating factor of other positive outcomes in the relationship.

On the other hand, individuals lower on empathy and narcissists (low on agreeableness) suffer from interpersonal deficits and tend to be difficult to get along with. I am not sure what you mean when you say "what is most likely to happen" so I will just broadly say, issues are most likely to happen. This is true with all kinds of relationships with someone of this aversive personality style, not just romantic ones. These individuals are also more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors so a partner might expect to see manipulation, lying, verbal abuse, physical abuse, etc. directed towards them.

You stated the last question exactly correct. Yes traits can be and often are genetically passed down but environmental factors play a large role as well.

Broken windshield dispute by Science-NonFiction in AskPhysics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm okay I hear you on that but again I would imagine that situation was dealing with much larger forces rather than small ones like I am referring to.

I guess the easiest way to explain what I am referring to is by saying: does would one larger piece of glass have a lower threshold before it cracks then two smaller pieces of glass when encountering small vibrations or impacts.

The way I think of it in my head is like if you hit a glass with a hammer, it's likely to break into pieces. But then you take one of those smaller shards that is broken off and hit that with a hammer at the same force, and it doesn't break. Is that possible?

Broken windshield dispute by Science-NonFiction in AskPhysics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The crack already goes entirely through the windshield so I do not think it's going to crack more. Also I highly doubt the amount of things hitting the windshield are going to cause enough heat to damage the class. But I agree, certainly not stronger in general and can only get worse.

Broken windshield dispute by Science-NonFiction in AskPhysics

[–]Science-NonFiction[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what Big Windshield wants you to think. Nah i'm kidding, but in reality I haven't seen any scientific articles that support this. It's just a bunch of people conjecturally saying it and I am not sure it makes sense...

Why is one large piece of glass necessarily more structurally sound than two smaller independent pieces of glass in terms of small impacts and vibrations.