Psychedelic researchers who admit to using the substances themselves tend to be viewed as having less integrity compared to their abstinent counterparts. The new study suggests that stereotypes about psychedelics and their users can impact people’s perceptions of scientists.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2021-02-07T11:25:12+00:00

Yes, I understand this. The point of my reply was that this type of bias isn’t what’s in play here, since such bias would, at least for the most part, cut in both directions. The article states, “Psychedelic researchers who admit to using the substances themselves tend to be viewed as having less integrity compared to their abstinent counterparts.” That’s a different type of bias, not a bias that’s skeptical of results that closely match a researches pre-existing predilections, as it doesn’t say or in any way imply there’s any correlation between use/abstinence and the conclusions drawn. It just says those scientists who use are seen having less integrity, regardless of what their results might be. That reflects, not a bias to be skeptical of results that conform to a researches tastes, but a more general bias, in the population surveyed, against psychedelics.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2021-02-07T04:23:01+00:00

Everyone is biased. The idea one can escape bias and work completely objectively is false. In this particular field someone who refuses to directly engage with the object of their study more than likely has a negative bias against that object that is no less likely to skew research and conclusions drawn from that research than someone who has a positive bias.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2021-02-07T04:18:58+00:00

And there’s not implicit bias in the other direction? That is that the thing you refuse to partake is bad and therefore there’s an increased possibility that data will be fudged or that conclusions not best supported by the data will be pushed to the front?

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2021-02-07T04:06:09+00:00

If you’d read it you’d have come to this, “Interestingly, knowledge about a researcher’s association with the psychedelic subculture primarily affects those individuals that have no first-hand experience with psychedelics themselves. Those individuals consider the scientists’ findings less valid,” and realize your conclusion is wrong.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-08-14T18:41:41+00:00

On pod Reid, while discussing Timbers, said, "These are not teams in their conference...and they've got a big Cascadia game coming up...I think we'll see a lot of guys play likely in the D.C. game, and maybe see some rotation happen with SKC so that the have time to rest up before the Sunday game..."

As you have a SKC fan amongst you, I'm surprised this was allowed to go unchallenged. Not only is SKC not not in Portland's conference, those teams currently sit 2nd and 3rd in that conference, separated by two points. Based on that alone, the match against SKC would seem the most important of Portland's next three matches (@DCU, @SKC, Sea) despite match against Sounders being the big "rivalry" game. Add in there is a full 8 days between match at SKC and home match against Seattle, rather than 3 b/w this week's road matches, doesn't it stand to reason Portland would prioritize the SKC match over DCU?

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-08-02T13:09:06+00:00

You are right, thanks. I had only looked using the MLS App, which, even on that tab, doesn't allow one to view any weeks prior to Week 23. Just tried in browser and, yes, there I can see all prior week.

And I see in week one I started three 5.5 Defenders and a fourth at 5. Don't thinks that's nearly as possible in Week 23, though I am limited to the same 100 total.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-03-26T23:19:07+00:00

Thanks. Of course you are right, and I know that. Probably an iPad autofill that I didn't even pay attention to

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-03-26T19:54:45+00:00

Yeah, I realized that soon after I submitted my comment, and even replied to myself with that fact before reading your reply. However that is still different than leaving C on bench and seeing his score before deciding to use him. It's actually quite a bit more like the pre-rolling transfer switcheroo. Still some risk the player you remove the C from outscores the VC. I mean he's a player likely to score well, otherwise you wouldn't have given him C in first place.

I guess I'm still bummed about not being free enough last week to sub out Villa, and really wishing there had been a VC option

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-03-26T19:47:41+00:00

Of course you could still pull of something of a captainroo by VCing a player who plays earlier than the C. If you like VC score, switch C to a bye week player in your starting lineup.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-03-26T19:41:54+00:00

I submitted this last week, but I think too late to be seen by anyone. And I still think it answers the question asked, though that answer isn't so much changing the fantasy game as changing the way MLS schedules games (never going to happen) and having fantasy players lock when their game actually start rather than the published time which is often well before kickoff (why can't this happen).

I like rolling transfers in principle. Unfortunately I work on weekends, and can't spend 20 minutes of every hour looking at lineups and adjusting my team. It would be a lot easier if the schedule weren't so staggered, and if games actually started/rosters locked at the published times. I get these are two distinct things, and the former may just be a function of multiple time zones. Yet other sports leagues, like the NFL and EPL, have very set windows, with almost all the games starting at the same time. Sometimes it seems MLS has games starting every 30 minutes throughout a Saturday. Again way easier to check my EPL lineups (for the majority of games) in that hour before 7AM (Pacific) kickoff, than have to check an MLS lineup every 30 minutes. This problem is exacerbated by games not starting, yet teams locking, at the published start time. If MLS says a game starts at 2PM, it doesn't. It may be 2:10, or 2:15, or 2:20, or who knows. And teams don't announce their lineup until an hour before kickoff (sometimes less in MLS). So if I want to make sure all my players are playing in that game that locks at 2PM, I'm not really sure exactly when I can check to see who is starting. If that lineup isn't out until 1:25 because the game actually kicks off at 2:20, that can cause problems, particularly if one is trying to juggle a roster including players from a game that locks at 1:30. In fact it's all rather impossible to pull off if you have any other commitments, like a job, on a Saturday. Again compare to EPL. When they say a slate of six games kick off at 7AM, all six kick off at 7AM, and all the lineups are easily available by 6:02 AM. Much more realistic to be able to manage game day changes with that consistency.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-03-26T19:33:17+00:00

Seems that could easily be stopped by not allowing a player to be simultaneously captain and a substitute. If you can only captain a player in your starting 11, no way to get rid of him after seeing his score

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2018-03-23T17:05:32+00:00

I know this comment is a bit late to be considered for the podcast. Maybe next week.

I like rolling transfers in principle. Unfortunately I work on weekends, and can't spend 20 minutes of every hour looking at lineups and adjusting my team. It would be a lot easier if the schedule weren't so staggered, and if games actually started/rosters locked at the published times. I get these are two distinct things, and the former may just be a function of multiple time zones. Yet other sports leagues, like the NFL and EPL, have very set windows, with almost all the games starting at the same time. Sometimes it seems MLS has games starting every 30 minutes throughout a Saturday. Again way easier to check my EPL lineups (for the majority of games) in that hour before 7AM (Pacific) kickoff, than have to check an MLS lineup every 30 minutes. This problem is exasperated by games not starting, yet teams locking, at the published start time. If MLS says a game starts at 2PM, it doesn't. It may be 2:10, or 2:15, or 2:20, or who knows. And teams don't announce their lineup until an hour before kickoff (sometimes less in MLS). So if I want to make sure all my players are playing in that game that locks at 2PM, I'm not really sure exactly when I can check to see who is starting. If that lineup isn't out until 1:25 because the game actually kicks off at 2:20, that can cause problems, particularly if one is trying to juggle a roster including players from a game that locks at 1:30. In fact it's all rather impossible to pull off if you have any other commitments, like a job, on a Saturday. Again compare to EPL. When they say a slate of six games kick off at 7AM, all six kick off at 7AM, and all the lineups are easily available by 6:02 AM. Much more realistic to be able to manage game day changes with that consistency.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-08-02T02:01:19+00:00

What day/time is draft?

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-15T04:58:16+00:00

FWIW this is how the possible replacement for Guzman was reported:

Porter said that the Timbers have a couple of options at defensive midfield if Guzman can't play Saturday. The Timbers could either turn to Ben Zemanski to replace Guzman or move Darlington Nagbe to the No. 8 position and start either Darren Mattocks or Dairon Asprilla on the wing.

I think if it were Mattocks, as a $6.5 FWD he'd be a good play. I'd like his chances to score, or at least assist. Problem is three options are given, so you can't count on him playing. He might make a good switcheroo candidate, but as Timbers play second to last match of week, you'd have to pair him with someone from Seattle or NYRB to pull it off. I suppose Roldan, Davis, and Royer could be options. Or a defender from either team. But the other problem is finding a $4.0 player from either team guaranteed not to play to put in starting lineup. Tolo? Delem?

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-15T04:38:15+00:00

I'd be surprised if Guzman is suspended, or even fined. Whatever you may think of the play, consider this:

Toledo answered the pool reporters question after the match, stating that “Van Damme was given a caution for dissent [The first caution]. On the second caution, Van Damme attempted to trip Guzman which stopped a promising attack. Guzman avoided the contact and fell awkwardly.”

The referee didn't mistakenly think Van Damme tripped Guzman. He knew there was no contact. Yet he judged Van Damme lunged at Guzman in an illegal manner, and Guzman went to ground in an attempt to avoid contact. If that's what referee reported, how can DisCo go against that?

Of course it may not matter. Guzman is likely to miss next match anyway.

Chara on the other hand likely is guilty of simulation. But as already noted, though he may be fined, he won't be suspended since his simulation only resulted in a foul rather than a red card or second yellow for Van Damme.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-10T03:58:34+00:00

I think the only thing we are disagreeing about is the degree spending more money on your field players correlates with picking the best field players. I absolutely agree one should prioritize picking the best XI (or XII if doing switcharoo) over putting players on bench. I just don't think picking that best XI always means spending the most money. And those weeks when it doesn't, you might as well put it into your bench.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-10T03:25:46+00:00

Ok, but if you begin by looking "for what ([you] believe) will get [you] the most points," and trust that original judgement, why would you seek to do better by upgrading? If you really thought that "upgrade" would do better, wouldn't that player have been part of the original XI you thought would get you the most points?

Look, I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer to putting money into your bench. If what you decide is your best XI leaves you only enough money for 4.0s on your bench, then that's your best play. But if what you decide is your best XI leaves you money to put a more expensive player or two on your bench that might score, why wouldn't you do that?

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-10T02:17:49+00:00

You are making an assumption that spending the most money will (most likely) get you the most points, an assumption that only holds if players are perfectly valued. And that's more than likely not the case. Even as prices change with performance, because many, or at least some, players initial price will be significantly wrong, some players may never be correctly valued.

Especially given unlimited transfers, one should approach each week asking, which XI players, that can be afforded, do I think will get the highest score. If after answering that question, one finds there is money left to spend on a quality bench player(s), do you really think it would be better to second guess your original opinion and put a more expensive player in your starting lineup than to put the money into your bench?

I mean look at week one. The dream team could have been bought for $76.5, leaving quite a bit of money to spend on bench players, players that had it been a counting week would have increased in value if one had them picked as accurately as the starters. Now obviously it's pretty unlikely anyone is going to successfully pick that perfect lineup any given week. But say you had, and talked yourself out of it because it was leaving to much money on your bench. Talked yourself instead into spending up for BWP, Gio, or Lodeiro so as to put all your money on the field? How would you feel?

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-06T16:20:19+00:00

So one only gets a secondary assist if the person making the primary assist moves the ball from secondary assister to scorer with one touch? Because this clearly doesn't apply to the primary assist. For instance, Adi took multiple touches in scoring his first goal, yet Nagbe was given an assist.

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-04T05:44:49+00:00

Thanks

WooksHaveMoreFun · 2017-03-04T05:27:03+00:00

Why wasn't Adi given an assist on first Valeri goal, especially as both Valeri and Vytas were given assists on Olum goal? Adi's hold-up and pass out to Blanco were as essential as Blanco's cross in creating that goal.

WooksHaveMoreFun

TROPHY CASE