Recent comments in /f/science

Feudamonia t1_j8fjw61 wrote

Reply to comment by Chris-1235 in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

We can argue the philosophy of when something becomes perceived or just received by neurons but that's a different conversation. The title posed no comprehension issues for me because the only alternative meaning was illogical (because no one has an invisible face).

1

thissexypoptart t1_j8fiof7 wrote

Reply to comment by Feudamonia in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

It is necessary. We need to be precise with our language in science. Especially in studies like this, where what is perceivable at which level of processing is the major aspect being explored.

To say a face is just “invisible” would be vague but arguably appropriate since conscious sight involves your brain determining what is actively perceived and what’s processed in the background of consciousness. But “visible to the eye” is different concept altogether. It’s not just vague, but actually false for the headline to describe things that way.

It could just be a case of poorly written headlines choosing concision over accuracy, but imo that’s shouldn’t be acceptable in science journalism when it’s so core to the point being reported on. It’s a pedantic point but this is r/science. Headlines shouldn’t have falsehoods in them.

13

Goobzydoobzy t1_j8fin52 wrote

Reply to A study found that CBD "exerted anti-cancer activity by reducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition and causing cell cycle arrest." by OregonTripleBeam

I believe CBD is extracted from hemp plants and not marijuana. Is that because hemp has a higher level of CBD or because it’s a more legal way to go about growing/extracting? Basically, would someone get a significant amount of CBD from, let’s say, one bong bowl? I’m aware that every strain probably defers, but just generally speaking

1

Helldozer5000 t1_j8fhz7e wrote

Reply to comment by gravitywind1012 in A study in the US has found, compared to unvaccinated people, protection from the risk of dying from COVID during the six-month omicron wave for folks who had two doses of an mRNA vaccine was 42% for 40- to 59-year-olds; 27% for 60- to 79-year-olds; and 46% for people 80 and older. by Wagamaga

I agree the sentence is confusing in a vacuum but it makes perfect sense in context. They're just saying that the people who chose to be vaccinated were already healthier in general so even if those healthy people didn't get vaccinated they still would've fared better than the people who ended up not getting the vaccination because those people were already in worse health.

Nothing super groundbreaking here, we already knew COVID was way worse for people with multiple comorbidities.

82

AyraLightbringer t1_j8fgyqb wrote

Reply to The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

Isn't this not both old news and heavily debated? The argument that we had a hardwired pathway for fear detection is from 2001 or something and people have been arguing against that for just as long.

1

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8fgxw8 wrote

Reply to comment by myusernamehere1 in A study found that CBD "exerted anti-cancer activity by reducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition and causing cell cycle arrest." by OregonTripleBeam

>Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

And how is this argument different from what I stated just prior?

> In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

1

Feudamonia t1_j8fg6hi wrote

Reply to comment by Chris-1235 in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

It's not muddled at all. Communication is about effective and efficient conveying of data. There are two possible interpretations of the title - either the person had an invisible face or their face isn't perceived visually. Which would you think is logical?

−1

Feudamonia t1_j8ffe30 wrote

Reply to comment by thissexypoptart in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

>more accurate

Yes but it's a distinction that isn't necessary. We already know the person has a visible face so by saying invisible the author is accurately and efficiently describing what's happening. That's entirely appropriate communication.

−5

Chris-1235 t1_j8ffbbf wrote

Reply to comment by Feudamonia in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

Why would you muddle things like that? Not visible to the eye and not perceptible by the mind are the same only for people who know nothing about how the brain works.

Even if you ignore the subconscious, "Invisible to me", "difficult to see", or "invisible when I look this way" are more appropriate, when you talk about things you fail to perceive, but that are there for others to see, e.g. when zooming in or playing sonethin in slow motion.

5

thissexypoptart t1_j8fetkj wrote

Reply to comment by Feudamonia in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga

Sure that is true, but “invisible to the eye” is the phrase used here. No, the faces are detected by your eye. Photons hit your retina, engage the signaling cascade leading to your optic nerve firing. Same as any other visual stimulus that results in photons hitting your rods and cones. This would be impossible if the title’s phrasing were correct.

“Invisible to conscious visual processing” would be more accurate. It’s what happens after the signal is passed from your retina to your brain where the invisibility comes in.

Edit: for the record, the authors of the study titled it “Rapid processing of invisible fearful faces in the human amygdala”. So “go complain to the authors of the scientific article” is a pretty silly comment. It’s OP that added “to the eye” to that title.

22

orbitaldragon t1_j8fduet wrote

Reply to comment by Wagamaga in A study in the US has found, compared to unvaccinated people, protection from the risk of dying from COVID during the six-month omicron wave for folks who had two doses of an mRNA vaccine was 42% for 40- to 59-year-olds; 27% for 60- to 79-year-olds; and 46% for people 80 and older. by Wagamaga

The issue here is this study is only look at death tolls. There are other issues associated with getting COVID that are completely ignored here.

1

Im_Talking t1_j8fdctd wrote

Reply to New analysis of 142 influential films featuring artificial intelligence (AI) — from 1920 to 2020 — reveals that nine (8%) of 116 AI professionals were portrayed as women by marketrent

The dangers of 'equal outcomes', which leads to discussions of imaginary problems. Topics like this do nothing but widen any divide because one can easily find something which has disparity in the complete opposite. For example, I wonder what percentage of movies between 1920-2020 show women as violent... 8% perhaps?

2