psyche-metric
who let me adult?
If you honestly think I know what I'm doing, you're in for a bad time.
71 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
Text
An examination of Yale’s defensive statement, released after public outcry over their study on autistic toddlers.
On December 6th, 2020, a study conducted by three researchers from Yale University’s Child Study Center was published in the Official Journal of the International Society for Autism Research. It’s called “Attend Less, Fear More: Elevated Distress to Social Threat in Toddlers With Autism Spectrum Disorder.” (https://europepmc.org/article/med/33283976) It is a peer-reviewed study, and it was approved by Yale’s Institutional Review Board.
The goal of the study was to measure autistic toddlers’ fear responses, in order to compare their emotional reactivity to that of neurotypical toddlers. The idea was that this could give some insight into how anxiety and depression develop in autistic people later in life. That’s a decent goal, but those insights could have been sought in much better ways, and without conflating autism with mood disorders (suggesting that autism itself requires treatment, as the authors of this study did).
As it was, the authors ended up conducting a study in which toddlers (42 autistic and 22 neurotypical) endured 10 trials of frightening stimuli to measure their fear responses. The methodology was based on the Lab-TAB - Locomotor Version, which is a standardized method of measuring the general temperament of young children.
In other studies (1, 2) that use some variation of Lab-TAB techniques, the stimuli used to induce fear include a mechanical toy dog, and a toy robot. In those studies, none of the fear-inducing stimuli were introduced for more than three trials, and the durations of those trials were significantly shorter (15 seconds and ~10-30 seconds respectively, compared to 60 seconds in the Yale study). In the Yale study, not only did the toddlers endure 10 trials each, but the stimuli used were much more frightening.
From Yale’s study:
“The Stranger probe involved a female stranger wearing dark clothing, a hat, and sunglasses entering the room, approaching the child, and leaning toward the child for approximately 3 s (one trial). The Objects condition included Spider (large mechanical spider crawling toward the child, three trials) and Dinosaur (mechanical dinosaur with red light-up eyes approaching the child, three trials). Masks involved a female stranger dressed in dark clothes and wearing three grotesque masks in succession (e.g. vampire, Star Wars character) entering the room briefly and maintaining an approximate 1.5-m distance from the child (three trials).”
“Each probe lasted approximately 60 s with the effective exposure to threat time of approximately 30 s. Breaks were instituted between each probe, with a minimum of 30 s and an average of 75 s (SD = 36 s) needed to ensure that the child’s affect returned to neutral before proceeding to the next probe.”
So, ten trials. Assuming that “trial” means “repetition of the probe,” each one lasted around 60 seconds. Since 60 seconds is one minute, that’s ten minutes of exposure to threat; five minutes if we’re being conservative and going with their estimation of 30 seconds of effective exposure. There was an average of 75 seconds between each trial, however. So that’s 9x75, which adds 675 more seconds to the total time of the experiment. 675 seconds is 11.25 minutes. Add that to the previously calculated ten minutes, and that brings the total time of the experiment to around twenty-one minutes.
All of this is in contrast to what the authors wrote in their defensive statement (https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/29344/):
Let’s pick apart each aspect of this paragraph.
1. “The events used to elicit emotional responses were very brief [and] had low intensity.”
Based on my calculations, the combined amount of time that the kids were exposed to the events was 5 to 10 minutes. That’s not brief compared to other studies measuring similar things. And surely a large mechanical spider, a dinosaur with red eyes, and a vampire are much more intense stimuli than a mechanical dog?
2. “[The events] were interspersed with playtime, and mirrored what the children might encounter in the real world. For example, a Halloween costume or a new mechanical toy.”
There is absolutely NO mention of playtime anywhere in this paper. Nothing. Not a word about it. The only thing that could be potentially be seen as playtime is the 30 to 75 seconds between trials. But really? There’s not even a mention of the kids being given toys between trials. All the study says is that they waited for the toddlers’ demeanor to become neutral again.
As for the “Halloween costume” and “mechanical toy” euphemisms here: the study literally says “grotesque masks.” Grotesque. And “toy” sure is an interesting way to say “large mechanical spider crawling toward the child.” We don’t have photographs of the masks or toys used in this study, but from the way they were described in the paper itself, the words “Halloween” and “toy” put a much too positive spin on things.
3. “The entire task reported on in the paper lasted approximately two minutes with several additional minutes for breaks and transitions.”
This is the part that baffles me. Anyone can look at the paper and see where they wrote that each probe lasted for 60 seconds, and that there were 10 trials. Even if there had only been one 60-second trial of each probe, that still would have been 4 minutes (for the 4 probes), not 2 minutes.
What they might be doing here is only counting “effective exposure to threat” (30 seconds), and then multiplying that by 4 for each probe. That would be 2 minutes. But if that’s true, they’ve still failed to explicitly state how long each trial of each probe was. Because there were 10 trials, not 4. And why would a trial of the Stranger probe last 60 seconds, while a trial of the other probes would only last 20 seconds? (60 seconds divided by 3 trials). The math works out, yes. But if that’s the case, this is an issue that should have been more clearly addressed in the paper itself. Clarification on what’s meant by the terms “probe” and “trial,” in addition to information on the duration of each trial, should have been established. And, “effective exposure to threat time for each probe” (a subjective measure to begin with) is not even close to what’s implied by the phrase “the entire task.”
Here’s the last bit I want to touch on:
There is no mention of physiological responses in this study. According to what they wrote in the paper, the authors observed external behavior, not internal bodily changes. The toddlers were not hooked up to any sort of technology that would have measured their heart rate, breathing, etc.
And perhaps the mildly distressed children had an easy time calming down. But what about the trials that had to be terminated and excluded from the results due to “the child’s negative affect” or “parental noncompliance (i.e. parent interfering with probe administration)”? If they literally had to end trials because the kids were so upset, or the parents intervened to comfort their children, then how is it possible to say that “none” of the children experienced extreme negative emotions?
Yale’s statement is full of holes, and creates more questions than it answers. The autistic community is calling for full transparency on the methods used, an explanation of the reasons behind those choices, and detailed answers to our questions about the ethical legitimacy of what happened. Inquiries about the study should be directed to the authors at these two email addresses: [email protected], and [email protected].
Thank you for reading.
~Eden🐢
239 notes
·
View notes
Text
vegans who refuse to even eat backyard eggs….why
271K notes
·
View notes
Text
The reason why NBC’s Hannibal found such a huge female audience is because Fuller’s/Mads’ Lecter is not a male power fantasy: he’s a female power fantasy.
He’s not a broody snippy git whose appeal is assumed apriori and who in real life would drive away absolutely everyone he met (e.g. any sad manboy ever trotted out as a lead by Moffat).
He’s not an “aspirational” over-muscled hulk.
He’s not a fighter for ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ for whom bodies are just collateral on his path to heroic self-actualization
This Hannibal is the Head Bitch In Charge.
He is independent to the n-th degree. He lives to please himself and no one else. He is fabulous. He shamelessly geeks out over obscure and refined pastimes and shares them with friends. He is the Queen Bee of his social circle. He takes any excuse to treat himself, but he also has perfect self-discipline: gym is not optional. His time-management skills are superhuman. He can decorate and keep a house like Martha Stewart, hold down several jobs, and practice multiple hobbies daily.
(And what are his hobbies, aside from slaughter? Cooking, foreign languages, drawing, playing musical instruments and composing. And clearly clothes shopping. He is probably on first-name basis with the best tailors and cordwainers in town. Contrast with Will, whose hobbies are stereotypically masculine: fixing motor boats, fishing, playing outside with his dogs.)
Hannibal is not young, but he wears his age gracefully. He regrets nothing, like an embodiment of Piaf’s “Non, rien de rien”. His hair is perfect because he clearly spends time in front of the mirror styling it, not because the show’s producer wanted him to look effortlessly cool (*cough*Sherlock*cough*).
He never, ever loses his temper in public, as if he knows that the world/audience will not fawn over him for trying to assert himself through vulgarity, posturing, or volume - all the typical ways in which men like to hijack and dominate conversations.
He can dispatch a creepy stalker like Franklyn with a single neck twist, with no consequences. A sweet fantasy, indeed. If only real life stalkers were so easy to dispose of.
Hannibal’s victims - those who were not killed in self-defense or as ‘murder presents’ for Will - tend to fall into two categories: other killers who act like *they* are the baddest bitches in town (Gideon, Tobias, the mural guy) and people who disrespect him. Of those, there are surprisingly many. In fact, it seems like the very esteemed pillar of Baltimore society Dr. Lecter goes through life constantly being dissed. This is rather puzzling. Hannibal is a tall good-looking white gentleman who speaks like a professor, dresses like a count, and drives a Bentley that costs more than people’s houses. And yet something about him prompts many people, especially in the service industry, to be rude to him.
But he doesn’t confront these “pigs” (already a gender-loaded term, even though it gets applied to victims of both sexes) in a head-on, macho way. Instead, he bides his time and dispatches his prey through some kind of a sneak attack. His preferred philosophy of fighting is “feminine”: assume your opponent is physically stronger and don’t try to out-muscle them. (Even if his opponent is much smaller and weaker, like Chilton.) Subterfuge, ambush, sedatives - Hannibal wins his fights by fighting on his own terms. Nevertheless, if a man should come at him with a weapon, he defends himself with perfect adroitness: Tobias, Jack, Mason’s henchmen, etc.
Even some aspects of Hannibal’s relationship with Will would make more sense if he were female. In particular the issue of, well, issue. Hannibal is clearly Not Okay with Will having children with anyone but him. This is somewhat odd for a man, especially one who seems to have never wanted kids before this. But it makes sense for a woman just past menopause: fate finally delivered her dream partner, but it’s too late to have a family. And so Hannibal sets up the dominoes for Margot’s pregnancy to be terminated practically as soon as he learns of it. If he can’t have Will’s kids, then no one can. They may be adopted, but they have to be *theirs*.
It also makes sense that when Hannibal discovers Will’s treachery, he goes full Medea on him. Killing the man’s children is common to cultural narratives of wronged women all over the world. It’s often the only leverage they have over the men, the only way they can exact revenge. Hannibal can take much more than Abigail from Will, but she is the only thing he can take that truly matters.
Bonus exercise for the reader: imagine a version of the show where everything is the same, but Hannibal is played by Meryl Streep.
Or even just swap Mads Mikkelsen & Gillian Anderson places. Let her be Hannah Lecter; let him be Dr. Bennett Du Maurier, her wary shrink. Both the characterization and plot still work almost 100%.
21K notes
·
View notes
Photo
I will continue to call The Creature “Frankenstein” and no force in Heaven or Earth will impede that.
328K notes
·
View notes
Text
So I just had the shit creeped out of me.
I’m not someone who believes in ghosts, but I was sitting in my room, alone and in the dark, and I heard the strings of my violin being softly plucked.
My violin is hanging on the wall several feet away.
So I gathered my courage, grabbed my phone, and used the camera light to investigate.
And found this.
A goddamn spider was playing my violin. Not even joking. The little shit.
429K notes
·
View notes
Text
Fred: Top three phrases that’ll create sexual tension: “Make me.” “Oh really?” “Is that so?”
George: “Prove it.”
Bill: “What’s in it for me?”
Charlie: “Wanna bet?”
Ron: “Scared, Potter?”
Harry:
Ginny: Ron, no.
480 notes
·
View notes
Video
KingVader has the best edit skill’s
Naruto in the Hood 🤣👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾😂
164K notes
·
View notes
Photo
Ryan Michelle Bath reacts as her husband Sterling K. Brown wins his Emmy Award, 9/17/17.
21K notes
·
View notes
Text
this is the cutest gif i have ever seen in my life but it also features a gay orgy so proceed with caution
152K notes
·
View notes
Video
instagram
If Horror Movie Characters Could Hear The Audience
176K notes
·
View notes
Text
being mentally ill + suicidal at a young age (before 18) is. strange, because you grow up with this idea that one day you’ll finally snap, turn off, be brave enough to kill yourself, so you don’t really plan for the future. adulthood- further life, it isn’t for you, nor do you feel included within the future of it. it isn’t.. it isn’t part of your life plan.
and then before you know it you’re 18 and you’re an adult but you never thought you’d get this far and sure it’s great that you’re still alive you guess but also. you feel so alone + lost in a world you never expected or planned to be a part of.
390K notes
·
View notes
Text
my anxiety has a loophole that if somebody is else is equally or more uncomfortable I develop the sudden ability to Do The Thing
622K notes
·
View notes