Author Topic: Podcast Topic suggestions  (Read 109809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #615 on: June 24, 2018, 09:00:03 PM »
It sounds to me like you're arguing about how self-aware various animals are. That's a big old can of worms.

...good luck on the marriage!
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline MothyJohn

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #616 on: July 31, 2018, 09:58:07 PM »
Hey guys,

Have you covered "Biocentrism"?

It seems to be very a trendy brand of pseudoscience lately.

Thanks

Offline Mr. Beagle

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
    • When God Plays DIce
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #617 on: August 27, 2018, 09:30:05 AM »
Rogues, this Salon article seems to me to be either bad science reporting or an over-hyped study about neuroscience:

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/23/human-and-reptile-brains-arent-so-different-after-all_partner/

The essence is that some scientists have found the "seeds" of neocortex cells in reptiles, supposedly negating the idea of "lizard brain" or "reptile brain."

I have been reading lots of neuroscience for nearly 20 years now, and I can't think I have ever heard or seen a neuroscientist use the term "lizard brain" or "reptile brain" without the caveat, "but this model of the brain is too simplistic." It would seem to me that upon hearing this discovery about these neocortex-like cells in reptiles, they would, to a person, say, "Of course there would be." The mammalian neocortext evolved out of "something."

In short, this study is not "disproving" anything.

That said, is it not still true that nearly all of the lizard's brain decision-making is focused on the "Four F's"? (with appropriate caveats)
Mister Beagle
The real world is tri-color
now blogging at http://godplaysdice.com

Offline Porphura

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #618 on: September 06, 2018, 07:20:45 AM »
Hello all. Long time listener, first time caller.

I run a month or so behind, so maybe this has already been covered but I couldn't see in the the upcoming headlines >.<

I wondered if the rouges considered dissecting Netflix's Afflicted.

I know previously you have described their positions on things like electromagnetic sensitivity and chronic syndromes in the past, but now Netflix has made it about real people with emotive storylines in a bingeable format. I can't help but feel this show does a really bad job of informing viewers and comes across more like a medical freak show.
I even see some the people involved have since written about how the editing process has manipulated their stories to suit their creators narrative.

It seems to me as a perfect conglomeration of the problems with medical communication today, and unfortunately it's on Netflix so people are talking about it.

Offline CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8675
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #619 on: September 06, 2018, 11:02:34 AM »
The problem with dissecting, deconstructing  and debunking woo on TV is you really have to watch the show very closely and with an open mind.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Epivet

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #620 on: September 10, 2018, 08:04:23 PM »
Hi, I’m in the risk assessment field, and I’ve noticed lately that it is becoming very popular to use risk matrices to combine qualitative estimates of probability and consequences into overall estimates of risk. However, after reading the articles by Tony Cox (2008, What’s wrong with risk matrices) and Shabnam Vatanpour (2015, Can public health risk assessment using risk matrices be misleading), I recognize the difficulties with this approach. Once you think about it in terms of iso-risk contours, it seems obvious that the type of matrix used has to match the nature of the probability and consequence scales, and that it will be impossible to avoid at least some misclassification of risk. I think it must not be intuitive, though, because I’ve seen models being developed to inform important decisions that seem to have just randomly chosen a matrix. I thought it might be a good topic to cover, given the rise in popularity of the risk sciences, and I have a few other suggestions in this field as well. Thanks, love the show!

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #621 on: September 10, 2018, 10:56:11 PM »
...

Welcome aboard, Epivet. The rogues don't visit here much anymore, so I recommend sending the topic to info@theskepticsguide.org. Also, crap on a cracker do people NOT UNDERSTAND RISK AT ALL or what?!

(click to show/hide)

TL;DR My experience is that any tool that helps people systematically disambiguate 'risk' from 'fear' is likely to show significant and immediate ROI.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline Epivet

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #622 on: September 12, 2018, 09:45:36 PM »
Hi brilligtove, thanks for the tip about the email!
Yes, that’s the idea. I like your probability and consequence scales, especially “meh” :-)
There’s really no issue with mapping the risks out that way. The problem is when you start to draw out the boundaries between one decision and another. In many matrices, this is done with colours (e.g., if it falls in the green zone, do nothing, but in the red zone, act fast). You’ve described the same thing in words, but what assumptions went into those choices of cut-offs? There are so many different ways you can make those divisions. The one you’ve described (for example with the entire left column being treated differently) is different from most of the matrices I’ve seen. It might work best for your particular situation, given the weights applied within the scales, but that choice (basically, the shape of the different decision zones) is an important one. It should be thoroughly considered in each situation, rather than just using the same matrix as someone else.

This also kind of leads me to one of the other related issues: prioritization for the purposes of resource allocation. People often forget that it’s important not to jump straight to ranking risks before you’ve figured out the purpose of the prioritization exercise. For example, if you are allocating fixed resources and you have a fixed set of potential actions, then you should be ranking your actions based on cost-effective risk reduction. In other words, you don’t necessarily want to pour resources into a high risk if your controls are not effective at reducing that risk. That is, if your goal is allocating resources to achieve maximum risk reduction on a population level. There are alternative models within health economics at an individual level, but I don’t know much about those.

Personally, I think that the wrong tool can actually be worse than no tool, as it can give decision-makers a false sense of security.

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5890
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #623 on: September 13, 2018, 07:50:45 PM »
I agree with you on basically all of this. There is a chicken and egg problem in many projects where you don't know enough about the risks and constraints to define a relevant basis for prioritization. It would make sense to iterate on a risk log the same way you iterate on requirements.

Prioritization has always been a pain in my ass. People want to rank requirements based on gut feel, not on alignment to some objective. I like your thinking about ranking risks according to some goal, too. That fits nicely with the tight relationship between risks and requirements.

  • Each requirement must align to one or more business objectives. Each requirement describes a change that the project can control.
  • Each risk must align to one or more project objectives (e.g., time, budget, money). Each risk describes a situation that the project can not control but must be able to react to.

I know this definition of risks is not universally accepted (even in a business project context). I did help get that idea pretty deeply embedded in the BABOK though. It has a variety of benifits for defining project scope among other things.Also

I see your point on the shape of the decision zones. In business projects risk management is usually a really blunt instrument, so getting any kind of meaningful differentiation at all is a huge win. Doing a real risk analysis on the target of the project - the customers, systems, citizens, etc. - should be a much more rigourous activity.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

 

personate-rain