#highly scientific literature

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: SEGM

Published: Aug 13, 2023

Near-zero regret” findings among adults suffer from a critical risk of bias and have low applicability to youth

Recent research published in JAMA Surgery evaluated satisfaction and regret among individuals who had undergone chest masculinizing mastectomy at the University of Michigan hospital. The average patient age at the time of mastectomy was 27 years; no patients who were under age 18 were allowed to participate in the study.

The participants reported high levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret at an average of 3.6 years following mastectomy. The study authors lauded the “overwhelmingly low levels of regret following gender-affirming surgery,” and framed their findings as in conflict with the “increasing legislative interest in regulating gender-affirming surgery,” referring to current legislative attempts to restrict or ban “gender-affirming” procedures for minors. Another group of authors provided an invited commentary on the paper, reinforcing the view held by the study authors, and asserting the presence of a “double standard:” “gender-affirming” mastectomies have come under undue scrutiny by states’ legislators, while other surgical procedures with higher regret rates do not appear to concern legislative bodies.

The study suffers from serious methodological limitations, which render the findings of high levels of long-term satisfaction with mastectomy among adults at a "critical risk of bias"—the lowest rating according to the Risk of Bias (ROBINS-I) analysis. ROBINS-I is used to assess non-randomized studies for methodological bias. The "critical risk of bias" rating signals that the results reported by the study may substantially deviate from the truth. The results also suffer from low applicability to the central issue the study and the invited commentary sought to address, which was whether legislative attempts to regulate “gender-affirming” surgeries are warranted in minors. Unfortunately, these highly questionable findings are misrepresented as certain and highly positive by both the study authors and the invited commentators, several of whom have significant conflicts of interest.

Below, we provide a detailed explanation of the key methodological issues in the study which render its claims untrustworthy and not applicable to the patient population at the center of the debate: youth undergoing gender reassignment. We also comment on the alarming trend: several prestigious scientific journals appear to have deviated from their previously high standards for scholarly work and instead have become vehicles for promoting poor-quality research, seemingly to influence judicial policy decisions rather than advance scientific understanding. We conclude with recommendations about how journal editors can restore the integrity of scientific debate and raise the bar on the quality of published studies in the field of gender medicine.

[ For in-depth analysis, see: https://segm.org/long-term-regret-satisfaction-mastectomy-critical-appraisal ]

SEGM Take-Aways

Although this study reports extremely high rates of satisfaction and low regret, the timeframe in which these outcomes were assessed is insufficient—just 3.6 years post-mastectomy on average. The sample is also highly skewed: 50% of the participants had mastectomies in the last 3.6 of the 30 years. This skewing of the length of time since surgery is expected, given the sharp rise in the number of people (especially adolescents and young adults) identifying as transgender and undergoing chest masculinization mastectomy. It is also a short time in which to assess regret, particularly since one quarter of study participants were younger than age 23 at time of surgery and the median age of first birth in the US is 30 years.

The conclusion of high satisfaction/low regret suffers from a critical risk of bias due to the high non-participation rate, important differences between participants and non-participants, and lack of control group. Problematically, the authors misuse the (critically-biased) results from adults to argue against regulations for irreversible body alternations for minors and do so with a decidedly politicized spin.

The only intellectually honest commentary is that we do not have good knowledge of the likely rates of detransition and regret following chest masculinization mastectomy, nor do we know how many people experience regret but remain transitioned. There is an urgent need for quality research in this area. Previously, detransition and regret rates were considered to be low: they may have indeed been low due to the much more rigorous screenings, or the results may have been biased by the notoriously high dropout rates that plague “regret” research. Regardless, there is now growing evidence of much higher rates of medical detransition.

A recent study from a comprehensive U.S. dataset with no loss to follow-up revealed a 36% medical detransition rate among females within just 4 years of starting hormonal transition. At least two recent studies suggest that average time to regret among recently-transitioned females is about 3-5 years, but there is a wide range. Much less is known about detransition among those who undergo surgery. A growing number of detransitioners now express regret associated with the loss of breastfeeding ability, with one case study detailing breastfeeding grief experienced some 15 years post-mastectomy.

The study and invited commentary exemplify three problematic trends that plague studies emerging from the gender clinics: problematic conflicts of interest of the authors; leveraging scientific journals to disguise politically-motivated pieces as quality research; and a conflicted stance by the gender medicine establishment on surgery for minors. We expand on each briefly below.

Conflicts of interest of study authors and commentators 

The significant conflicts of interest of the gender clinicians who study and report on the outcomes of “gender-affirming” interventions cannot be overlooked. These clinicians are conflicted financially, since their practices specialize in “gender-affirming” interventions, as well as intellectually. While conflicts of interest among experts are common, such experts should still attempt to be balanced in their discussions and should acknowledge and reflect on their conflicts of interest.

The interpretations of the data in the study is neither rigorous nor balanced, and both the study and the invited commentary have a decidedly political spin. Further, the invited politicized commentary does not disclose that at least one of the authors is a key expert witness opposing states’ efforts to regulate “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors. This role alone precludes the ability to provide a balanced commentary.

There is a fundamental problem with research emerging from gender clinic settings. The same clinicians provide gender-transitioning treatments to individual patients in their practice; serve as primary investigators and custodians of data used in research informing population health policies; and increasingly, provide paid expert witness testimony in courts defending the unrestricted availability of hormonal and surgical interventions for minors.

As a result, such clinicians cannot express nuanced perspectives. Since any balanced statements may be used against them in a court of law when they serve as expert witnesses, they must resort to the lowest common denominator of the "winner-takes-all" adversarial approach. Such an approach does not tolerate nuance. Unfortunately, this approach contributes to the erosion of the quality of the published work in the arena of gender medicine and accelerates loss of trust about the integrity of the scientific process.

Misuse of scientific publications to promote politically-motivated articles disguised as scientific research

That prestigious medical journals now serve as platforms for promoting misleading, politically motivated research that aims to apply a veneer of misplaced confidence in  highly invasive, irreversible treatment should worry everyone committed to evidence-based medicine and the integrity of science. Moreover, it impairs our ability to accurately assess and improve the long-term health outcomes of the rapidly growing numbers of gender-diverse and gender-distressed youths.

This is not the first time that a JAMA has been used as a platform for positioning advocacy for “gender-affirming” care as scientific research. In 2022, JAMA Pediatrics published a study that assessed bodily happiness in a group of subjects aged 14-24 three months after chest masculinization mastectomy. Despite the very short follow up and dropout rate of 13%, the authors argued that their findings supported the premise that there was no evidence to suggest that young age should delay surgery. They also asserted that their research would help dispel the misconception that such surgeries are experimental. The editorial commissioned to bolster the authors claims was descriptively titled, “Top surgery in adolescents and young adults-effective and medically necessary.”

Another troubling trend is the misuse of statistical tools to reframe research findings that contradict the author's own position. For example, a well-known study that claimed that access to puberty blockers reduce the risk of suicide disregarded the fact that individuals reporting use of puberty blockers use had twice as many recent serious suicide attempts as their peers who did not use puberty blockers. Like the finding cited above, the doubling of suicide attempts was not statistically significant due to a small underpowered sample—but the magnitude of the effect was striking and should have tempered the authors’ enthusiastic conclusion that puberty blockers prevent suicides. Another recent gender clinic study, widely and positively covered by major media outlets, claimed that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones led to plummeting rate of depression—even though the rate of depression among youth taking those medications remained demonstrably unchanged. More information about problems with research originating from gender clinics is detailed in this recent analysis.

Gender medicine’s stance on pediatric surgery

More generally, the gender medicine establishment is in a curious state of internal conflict about its stance on “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors.  On the one hand, it has become common for advocates of “gender-affirmation” of minors to insist that surgeries for minors are not performed and anyone who suggests otherwise is spreading “scientific misinformation” and “science denialism.”  On the other hand, gender clinicians publish mastectomy outcomes for minors in major medical journals, and laud surgeries for minors as “effective and medically necessary.” It is not uncommon for these opposing claims to be made by the same group of researchers and clinicians, as they test various arguments, searching for the "angle" that is most likely to convince judges and juries--and public at large--that scrutiny of the practice of pediatric transitions, which is increasingly occurring in European countries, is not warranted in the United States.

Notably, none of the European countries that are enacting severe restrictions on the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for minors have ever allowed surgeries for youth under 18. That the U.S. gender affirmation professionals continue to fight regulation of these problematic procedures speaks volumes about how far the U.S. healthcare has drifted when it comes to "gender affirmation" of minors.

Final thoughts

While it is challenging to determine how best to reduce the temperature of the highly politicized nature of the debate in gender medicine, the editors of scientific journals can begin to restore balance by recognizing how far the field has drifted from the standards of quality scientific research, and begin to expand their circle of peer-reviewers to those with diverse views. Inviting those concerned with the state of gender medicine (and not just the practices’ advocates) into the peer-review and commentary process is the first essential step to improve the quality of research published in the field of gender medicine.

--

--

==

The activists are predictably - and consistent with the superficiality of their own ideology - upset that anyone should look below the surface. It seems to be more troubling that anyone would notice the shoddiness of the research, than that the research is shoddy.

If this is supposed to be "healthcare," you would think that they would want the best healthcare, and be more alarmed at the misrepresentations of the study, than by people finding those misrepresentations.

Could it be that this is ideological rather than medical? 🤔

The conflicts of interest and funding sources alone are remarkable.

#Leor Sapir #SEGM #Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine #double mastectomy #top surgery #gender affirming mastectomy #ideological corruption #ideological capture #medical malpractice #conflict of interest #sarcastic font #medical scandal #medical corruption #gender ideology #genderwang #queer theory #gender affirming care #gender affirming surgery #gender affirming healthcare #medical mutilation #sex trait modification #religion is a mental illness

[sapphorror]

I am endlessly plagued by totally normal and appropriate feelings re: Zim and Dib saying each other's name's like that (if you get me, you get me), but I'm too lazy to make a compilation so I did the next best thing and wrote this piece of highly questionable literature about it instead

It's when Zim drops the suffix that Dib knows for sure things are about to get serious.

Most times, Zim spits out Dib’s name like it’s an insult, the tone indistinguishable from the one he uses when cycling through his roster of a schmillion and one derogatory titles, all of which smear together but might as well be a single moniker for the uniform way in which they’re spoken. Really, it’s not much different from the way most people tend to address Dib, as if the burden of tolerating his presence is an unpleasant but inevitable chore—just a bit more vehement and with the addition of arbitrary modifiers Dib’s long since learned to tune out. Sometimes it’s as if Dib has ceased to be a name at all and is instead a definition, the scientific classification for a new species of grotesque freak.

But every now and then—just often enough to keep Dib perpetually suspended in a state somewhere between eager and on-edge—the energy shifts, his last and most dire signal that a very dangerous game has already begun. There’s just as much contempt and an even nastier mocking edge, but there’s no mistaking it for another petty jab. It’s a knife shoved right in his middle, cold metal chill and the sharp numbing spark of a body going into shock, precise enough to leave his psyche spitting up rivers of rage or fear or both, but even as he’s shuddering around the lethal wound, there’s something in him that can see the care with which the blade has been sharpened.

More often than not, Dib only gets to be stabbed through the fuzz of a transmission as Zim describes his doom to him from wherever he’s judged a safe distance, the edges dulled by that slight alteration in quality that not even the best in Irken tech can entirely eliminate. That’s all well and good and gruesome enough, but it’s the occasions on which Zim’s enacted his plans in person that really stand out in Dib’s memory. Felt from beneath the full weight of every decibel, Zim’s voice almost sounds less sing-song than serenading, some single-minded ritual of seduction. A taunt, yes, but also a reassurance—that he really is every inch the monster Dib needs him to be, and that just for this moment, Dib is the sole locus of his attention. A creature of the cosmos, witness to incomprehensible wonders, stirred by Dib more than anything else, and under such exceptional circumstances, could anyone really claim he’s crazy just for being a little bit obsessed?

Zim's name sounds good in Dib's mouth.

Granted, Zim’s name sounds good in anyone’s mouth; there are some things simply too perfect to be butchered. With Dib, though, there’s a difference Zim can’t put his finger on. Of course, Irken names never roll off quite right from the humans’ flat, flappy tongues—too many hard consonants and clipped syllables for them to manage. Tak’s always sounds like the slam of a door, and poor Skoodge got stuck being addressed as something seen smeared on the sidewalk, stretched and squished at the same time. Even Zim’s name, unbutcherable as it might be, sounds slippery in their mouths, or else too quick, too sharp. Not with Dib, though—coming from him it’s slow and sibilant, a sort of sliding hiss, and that isn’t right either but for some reason Zim likes the sound of it, maybe even more than he does the real thing.

Things aren’t always so theatrical, of course. Far too often, Dib just shrugs the word off with all the dismissiveness due an old raincoat or coats it in enough casual contempt to make the internal cooling systems in Zim’s PAK falter by a couple dangerous degrees. No, if Zim wants the reverence he’s owed, he has to earn it, and that’s perfectly fine—it’s not as if the Dib has ever proven particularly difficult to entice. A mysterious occurrence, the suggestion of a scheme, any lure to lead him in by his overactive sense of curiosity and he’d be there, crying out for Zim’s attention as if his arrival hadn’t been half the goal in the first place. Sometimes he shows up already stumbling-sick with anger, at others sounding so ecstatic it might even be mistaken for sign of fondness, but in every case there is the one critical constant; that his presence itself is a papered-over proclamation of the most all-encompassing, unashamed want.

Not that Zim has ever been unwanted—the very notion, absurd!—but within the most walled-off corners of his mind, he’s willing to allow that maybe, just possibly, there’s a chance he’s never been wanted quite like this. Like a prayer or a pipe dream, the promise of settled scores and spiteful satisfaction, as if Zim’s somehow both the solution and the cause to all of Dib’s problems at once. The grating celebration always comes so premature, as if just seeing Zim, speaking to him, is by itself a form of vindication, and Zim’s never been the least bit pleased to let Dib have it. He knows it’s not much like an Invader to be running from something he could so easily fight, not much like an Irken, but the inevitable dogged pursuit that follows is proof of Dib’s dedication desperation, and what possible shame could there be in indulging that? After all, no consequence of getting caught is scarier than losing all cause for a chase.

#invader zim #zim #dib #zadr #zade #zadp #writing #my writing #iz posting #tumblr formatting my beloathed #i dont even want to talk about how long it took me to find a functional form of line break #could i do better? absolutely #but i weighed the value of this <1000 scribble against the cost of my sanity and the verdict was pretty unambiguous

[vivalabunbun]

Hiii Viva~

Hope, you'll take your time to read this. It's not a request of course. I was simply curious about something. To be honest, I've read all your fics and my goodness, they are mind blowing and always make overwhelm with emotions. Specially how you portray Al-Haitham. Every fic of his feels like a fic and a character study all at once.

You know, in your recent fic, I just noticed that you said Alhaitham is a man logic and rationality, which is true. But isn't he from the Haravatat Darshan or a department that has something to do with studying and deciphering various scripts? Like isn't he a linguist? I thought he was a man associated with the humanities stream or something like that if we put it into modern terms. So, the question here is—why portray him as a man of science? Sure, he's a genius and an intellectual person but can a person really be that apt at two different disciplines? For example, I'm a political Science Honours student and honestly....I hate subjects that has anything to do with maths or science in general. 🥲 Does that make sense?

I'm not saying, you can't portray him like that or anything but rather the intent of doing so. And honestly, I think, you yourself are a highly intelligent individual. The way you put tid bits of practical information into the plot of fics says a lot about you, the author as well. I admire that quality and probably would like to know how you do it so effortlessly?

I really hope that I did not come off as criticizing or a dumb person in general. I was just curious and wanted to know. Hope, you'll read this.

Btw, Happy Basant Panchami from India, Viva. Today, we worship the goddess of knowledge, wisdom and arts here. Fun fact, it's actually kinda officially forbidden to study today, you know.

Hope, I didn't rant much....sorry, in advance. 🥲🌹

Arunima~

Hello! this is an interesting ask 🤔

From my understanding, Haravatat focuses on semiotics, which also includes linguistics. Linguistics is a field of science, the scientific study of languages. Because empirical research is involved along with empirical evidence.

Perhaps you were thinking about literature, which is of the humanities and academia. Although of course, there are possible overlaps between linguistics and literature.

Al Haitham liked to read abstruse academic journals from a young age, so I'd like to think tidbits of information from those journals would naturally bury themselves in his thoughts.

His thoughts and ponderings resemble those who have been part of the sciences. Disagree, question, challenge.

Thus, why he's a nerd (affectionate).

But of course, this is all from my perspective, which is different from yours, which is different from the next person.

It's what makes character writing interesting because everyone will view everyone differently.

Thank you for your ask and Happy (belated?) Basant Panchami!

Your ask brought up an interesting thought, why can't people be apt at both humanities and science?

All throughout history humanities and science have helped the other progress. They are not opposites nor should they be. They progress thought, which in turn helps us better understand knowledge and the world around us.

Disagree, question, and challenge the paradigm is how the humanities and science have gotten where they are today, and how they will get to tomorrow.

I'm not an intelligent person, I'm just a curious person. I like reading a wide variety of things from fiction to academic essays, even mathematical theories in textbooks and notes from friends in premed. Because I'm curious about them.

Then I like applying them to what I create because I love creating. Little factoids here and there because I think it's interesting, learning about how things work so I can better draw the things I like.

No one has to be a genius or a prodigy to be apt at both, just be open-minded and willing to look at both. There is also nothing wrong about only liking one or the other.

Let's just not pit them against each other because then it'll just be destructive.

Maybe many have forgotten the symbiotic relationship between humanities and sciences.

#vivaramblings #I am really rambling #tldr: nerd

[fieldofdaisiies]

hc for our lord and savior hunt athalar plsss

+ anon: "Do you have any wing headcanons for Hunt? Both fluffy and smutty? I feel like we’re much more familiar with bat wings than angel wings 😂"

and yes, of course. I love Hunt so much, so here we go❤️❤️ w: mature

fluffy

first things first the Umbra Mortis might seem like this big bad guy but actually he often is a very fluffy teddy bear

Hunt loves morning cuddles

loves cuddling in the evening

and basically all the time

and gods, does he love embraces -> just holding in his arms you throughout the day, pulling you tightly to his chest, inhaling your scent, kissing the top of your head

it will bring him peace and comfort

Hunt is one to love long and thorough baths

he could sit in the water for hours (if it didn't turn cold), just relaxing and he loves bubble baths

Hunt is one to enjoy music and literature; he would never openly admit that but he loves to read scientific books and books on history and art

video gaming -> oh Hunt Athalar loves his video games

and he loves when you sit next to him when he plays, or lie next to him on the bed or couch, or sit on his lap

he will get a little distracted but that is fine

Hunt loves to cook

and not only simple meals, this man loves to cook four course meals and the most delicious dessert you have ever eaten

he also loves to cook with you

and he loves to gives you massages -> not only your shoulders, but he loves to massage your feet (yeah he has this feet thingy)

and lastly, his angle wings

I am a very firm believer that there is a part of these wings, right below where they are attached to the body where he is really ticklish

even the slightest brush of your fingers will make him curl up and laugh with tears in his eyes

and the wings are incredibly sensitive, not only in the way the Illyrian wings are, but you really have to be careful

it can be very painful if you plug out a feather or accidentally pull on it

smutty

lets just stay with the wings at first

Hunt loves wing play, yes they are sensitive and you have to be careful, but if you know how to work them right, this man will will melt

covered by feathers there are many veins and if they are touched it is highly arousing

one brush of your finger and his is as hard as a rock, begging you to give him more

and boy will he enjoy the wing play -> he lets himself moan, growl, groan, his head thrown back, lips parted

and to love morning sex

he normally is one to be up early and is there a better way to start his day than buried between your thighs? not for Hunt

he has gotten your consent and so he loves waking you up with the soft and tender strokes of his tongue

also Hunt is one love shower sex, he loves pushing up against the slippery shower wall while pounding into you

oh and he also would never say no to a quick but nice blow job in the shower

last but not least, after care if always given with Hunt; not matter what you two have done, he will always make sure you are fine afterwards

#hunt athalar #hunt athalar x reader #hunt athalar headcanons

[sporesgalaxy]

Tumblr keeps crashing each time I send this so I gotta be quick: do have any tips on how to study biology (college is not an option atm)

Oh boy! I will do my best!

I've listed the basic irl resources for biological information first, followed by some online resources.

I've got a strong Animalia bias, so apologies that I don't have any botany-specific sites for you. 😔

I'm sure there's some stuff I'm forgetting. I'll add on to this if I think of anything!

If there's anything specific you need help finding a reliable biological resource for, let me know and I will try my best to help find you something!

•••

Finding primary sources (stuff written by the scientists who did the research [i.e. a journal article]) is always very good, but reliable secondary resources (someone else summarizing other people's research [i.e. Wikipedia page, book]) can be very valuable as well.

•••

Meatspace Resources

-

I would highly recommend checking to see if there is a Nature Park in your area! Nature parks often have volunteer programs and/or free educational opportunities. In my experience, naturalists are always very excited to meet new people interested in learning about local ecology!

-

There's also Zoos and Aquariums of course, although I know they cost money and are typically geared more towards kids. I'm lucky to live near some nice ones. Maybe check if there are any special programs happening at Zoos/Aquariums in your area (by checking their website[s]), where you might learn more than you would on a normal day trip.

-

Plus natural history museums, which usually have rotating exhibits so that you can keep learning new things when you come back! They also have more of an all-ages vibe than Zoos in my experience. Once again dependant on if there's one near you, and not free.

-

Last but not least: the local library, although obviously not every published book is a flawless resource. Still, might be interesting to poke around! There's usually some sort of digital search catalogue to make finding things easier. Libraries are fun :)

•••

Online Resources

-

Jstor is GREAT. Not all jstor articles are open access/free, but some are! And you can set a search filter to show you only things you can access.

One good way to find out what experts have written for other experts about biology: search a species name or biological concept or type of experimental study, etc. etc., in jstor's journal articles. I've linked a search for journal articles "I can access" containing the word "biology" as an example.

The website layout can feel a little obtuse at first but I think if you fiddle around with it a bit, it's not too bad to figure out? Feel free to kick my ass if I'm wrong djgjkeg

-

Wikipedia is actually a very good place to introduce yourself to a lot of biological concepts. I would recommend checking out some of the sources yourself if you can-- usually at least some of them are free, and that can introduce you to new free resources for learning more (today I discovered bugguide.net!). Often they will link you to jstor.

But biology-focused wiki pages have a pretty good track record for Correct Information in my experience. The only issue I've run into is there being too little information sometimes.

-

Pubmed is a really good resource to read biomedical scientific papers for free if that interests you at all! Reading scientific papers is a really important skill and I think you can pick up a lot just by diving in and googling words you don't know.

A well-designed experiment is replicable (that is, you can understand from the paper how they set things up to the point that you could do it yourself, given the resources). It's also important to pay attention to sample size. The more times you replicate any process in an experiment, the more likely you will be able to identify what the most common result really is, and why.

-

Fishbase is a website I was introduced to in my icthyology class to find info about different fish species :) It kind of just dumps all the info on you in a big text wall, but many pages include great details about life cycle and diet that might go unmentioned on wiki pages.

-

I've never used bugguide.net before today, but so far it seems solid and like it has a lot of good info. I assume it is similar to fishbase but for bugs

-

EDIT: FREE ONLINE TEXTBOOKS I FORGOT ABOUT!!!

I used both of these for university classes at some point. I didn't use them much, so there may be issues I don't know about.

In my experience though they were solid resources, if a little confusingly worded at times. Bouncing between the textbooks and wikipedia tended to help me.

#syd writes an essay #<- not really but eh. to bookmark it. #asks #biology

[alphynix]

It Came From The Trash Heap (We Don't Talk About Kholumolumo)

A wastebasket taxon is what happens when species can't be easily classified and instead get hurled into a "catch-all" category.

…But that's not the only kind of taxonomic tangle that can befall a new discovery.

When a scientific name is assigned to a new species, but it isn't given a corresponding formal description and type specimen, it becomes a nomen nudum – a "naked name". Without a proper description and assigned holotype the name isn't valid, and the new species isn't technically accepted by the wider scientific community.

This has even happened to some surprisingly famous names. In the 1920s Velociraptor mongoliensis was briefly given the nomen nudum "Ovoraptor djadochtari" before getting its much more familiar name when it was officially described. Meanwhile the giant pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus northropi was stuck as a nomen nudum for decades, only finally getting a proper published description in 2021.

And there's another particular long-standing nomen nudum that became mildly infamous – "Thotobolosaurus", the "trash heap lizard".

Discovered next to a literal trash pile in the village of Maphutseng in Lesotho, a few scattered and broken bones of this "prosauropod" sauropodomorph dinosaur were first found in 1930. But it wasn't until the mid-1950s that a more extensive bonebed began to be unearthed at the site, and over the next decade over 1000 fossil fragments were collected.

In the mid-1960s the remains were initially classified as belonging to Euskelosaurus browni (which is now considered to be a wastebasket taxon), but just a few years later in 1970 the "Maphutseng Beast" was re-evaluated as a species new to science. It was referred to as "Thotobolosaurus mabeatae" – based on the local name of the discovery site, "Thotobolo ea ‘Ma-Beata" (trash heap of Beata’s mother) – but this name was never actually formally published.

Despite "Thotobolosaurus" being an undescribed nomen nudum it nonetheless went on to be repeatedly referenced in scientific literature over the next few decades, and appeared in several popular dinosaur books (even as recently as 2020!).

In the mid-1990s it was alternatively named "Kholumolumosaurus ellenbergerorum" in a Ph.D. dissertation, with this name derived from the kholumolumo, a reptilian creature in Sotho mythology, and the Ellenberger brothers who worked on the site. But this also didn't count as a formal publication and instead became a second nomen nudum for the species.

Eventually, 90 years after the first bones were found and 50 years after the debut of the name "Thotobolosaurus", this long-neglected sauropodomorph was finally given a proper published full anatomical description in 2020.

And it also got a third name, this time officially valid, based on the second one from the 1990s: Kholumolumo ellenbergerorum.

For something associated with trash for so long, Kholumolumo is actually now one of the most completely-known prosauropods. At least five different individuals were present in the collected fossil material, possibly as many as ten, and between them most of the full skeleton is represented – with the exception of the skulls, which are only known from a couple of small fragments.

We now know Kholumolumo was rather heavily-built, with chunky limb bones and unusually short shinbones. It would have been one of the biggest animals around in the Late Triassic (~210 million years ago), measuring at least 9m long (~30') and weighing around 1.7 tonnes (1.9 US tons), but despite its size it seems to have still been bipedal.

Due to the highly disarticulated nature of the bones the fossil site may have been a "bone accumulation area", a place where dismembered bits and pieces of different carcasses were regularly carried to be eaten by a predator or scavenger – essentially a trash heap, fittingly enough. A couple of "rauisuchian" teeth have actually been found among the remains, which might indicate what was chomping on these particular Kholumolumo.

———

Nix Illustration | Tumblr | Twitter | Patreon

#it came from the wastebasket #nomen nudum #taxonomy #kholumolumo #thotobolosaurus #prosauropod #massopoda #sauropodomorpha #dinosaur #paleontology #art #science illustration #paleoart #palaeoblr

[astrum-aetherium]

what do you think about henry with a s/o that is maths/science smart? would they get along or too different? from a maths girlie 😋

see, this is a partnership in which i feel henry would feel most intellectually challenged by his s/o. unless, of course, he was dealing with someone who bore an even broader knowledge of his own area of expertise, the classics. in regard to a math/science-smarts-focused scenario, however, let’s discuss:

because he respects that area of intelligence — despite not caring much about it as proven by his lack of interest for anything scientific, like the moon landing (lol) — i don’t think he wouldn’t be able to get along with someone who is more knowledgeable in that realm, even romantically. if anything, i think it would rouse his interest all the more, and he would at last have at least a little fuck to give about anything related thereto. plus, we know him to be somewhat mathematically gifted — he can deal with tremendous sums in his head, and that already poses a topic the two of you could discuss together at length. besides, i think it would do him good to have someone at his side who isn’t that infatuated by the classics, it’d be refreshing; his pretentious elitist bubble would be burst — he could even be humbled, and do imagine that — but it’s in no way an inherently bad thing whatsoever. he deserves to be brought back down to earth every now and again, as i’m sure we will all agree on, and a scientifically-oriented person will be able to do just that if i do say so myself. you guys do have an overall more sober and collected, tough-core air to you, if you’ll allow an english major to generalize a bit; less whimsical, but in a necessary humbling way. it’s what i like most about you.

there would be certain differences, of course, but that’s the beauty of a developing, riveting (friend-/relation-)ship — sharing bits of your respective areas of interest to broaden one another’s horizons anew and anew. admittedly, henry wouldn’t care about your material too much at first, but i believe he could grow intrigued with something he wasn’t particularly hyperfixated on if it was complex enough (as theoretical math and science are notorious for being) and/or enjoyed profoundly by someone he was fond of.

in the end, it could be evenings of him breaking down the various grammatical structures of latin/ancient greek to you, and you responding with complex greek theorems or scientific research conducted in the ancient timeframes he’s so interested in. you could thrive on one another’s knowledge, propel one another further on a cognitive level, and simply evolve as academics. after all, academic relationships not only involve parties versed in humanities, but science as well, in spite of literature and modern fiction underrepresenting the fact. i am unaware of the existence of a novel of a math smart x humanities smart pairing yet, but i’m sure it’d make for a thrilling plot. why not dabble into that idea?

to cut a prolonged rant short: yes, i think it would work well — with time. it’d certainly require heaps of patience, especially on your end, considering his condescension and disinterest in regard to science. but no, the two of you wouldn’t be too different for it not to work out in the end. after all, you’re still involved in the study and analysis of highly complex academic matters, wherefore the signature dark academia pretentiousness is still there; the specific area wouldn’t matter here — though, as i said, over time.

#free roam to be a pretentious academic couple ;) #astrum asks #henry winter imagine #henry winter x reader #henry winter thirst #indulgent thoughts #all the more opportunities to humble his ass #he would even feel insecure at times lol! #maybe that’s what would threaten the relationship #gotta be careful with pretentious men

[faustiandevil]

Depression makes a man do stupid things and here is what I did. Peter Lorre tier list, all movies (well the ones that were available online and in a language I could understand), all characters ranked in a highly scientific way. Feel free to defend your blorbos, but know this I’m right, you’re wrong, SHUDDUP!! (This is a reference I hope y’all get, but in any case do feel free to defend your blorbos I wanna hear y’alls takes.)

My reasonings under the cut. Enter, but be warned it truly is my twisted sick mind down there. If you scroll down long enough to see the Shining reference, I love you.

Bildreporter Johnny (F.P.1 antwortet nicht): No, no, no, no, no, no! Highly unfuckable look! Why does he look like an old man and a baby at the same time??? I can’t do this!!

Mr. Kentaro Moto (Mr. Moto Series): Racism. I’m sorry, I can’t. Absolutely hate it. Shit tier. Same goes with the movies. I only really liked Mr. Moto’s Gamble, which I found out was actually a Charlie Chan script asdfghjkl

Stephen Danel (Island of Doomed Men): Slave owner. Killed a monkey. Was kind of okay with his wife tho, until the end, I guess they needed a reason to off him.

Roderick Raskolnikov (Crime and Punishment): I’m putting him down on the list, because I read Crime and Punishment and the movie is way too ‘Murican. Already the names were bastardized and as someone who loves Russian literature I just can’t deal with that shit. He was okay, but ehhh… (The 1970 movie is way better, and Taratorkin is the best Rashkolnikov, fucking fight me.)

Nikolai Zaleshoff (Background to Danger): Again, butchering Russian names. Not even a patronymic. Kind of a caricature as well with all of the vodka drinking. And again he gets shot and for what??

Sergeant Berger (The Cross of Lorraine): I’m stronger. I will resist. The scene where he blows the cigarette smoke into the guy’s face and kicks him does things to me. I will admit. But that man is a nazi and I cannot in good consciousness put him anywhere else, but shit tier.

Captain Chang (They Met in Bombay): Glark Cable tolerable?? In my movie?? More likely than you think. Did not like the racism again. The beard is nice, so he goes slightly higher than shit tier.

Baron Ikito (Invisible Agent): He gets put in a slightly higher tier than shit tier only, because of the last line in the movie that made me very very gay. “I can make an honorable man out of you” like you can’t make him say shit like that I’m already a weak little homosexual!!

Hilary Cummins (The Beast With Five Fingers): This may be a surprise, but listen, hear me out, I have reasons. I cannot deal with an Astrology bitch. Like, yeah I also like to read my horrorscope every now and then, and I’m a Satanist, but I don’t vibe with that shit, he is too obsessed. Not every gay is gonna be into Asstrology. Also I cannot moan the name Hilary while giving this man dick without thinking of the Clinton woman. Also Cummins??? That’s an OnlyEnemies name. PS. The movie was bad when the hand turned out to be fake.

Julius O’Hara (Beat The Devil): Oh, no I’m not vibing with the hair again. I’m not into it. Loved his bullshitting, even if he is not very good at lying.

Conseil (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea): Liked seeing him together with my rich successful uncle Lukács, and had some nice fits in the movie, but it’s only slightly above shit tier. Saw tentacles, but got nothing. Absolutely disappointed.

Ahmed (Five Weeks in a Balloon): Racism again. Love his rainbow colored pants. The fez does nothing for me. Because of the earring he gets put higher than shit tier.

Pawlitschek (Bomben Auf Monte Carlo): He’s cute. He knows how to cook. Its fucking goulash of course, but ugggh fine I’ll eat it. Look I love you I’ll eat it. Fucking tourist food that no self-respecting Hungarian is going to touch. It’s just fucking soup.

Otto Fuesslli (What Women Dream Of): He is adorable. Clearly faking that piano play, but he sings like an angle. Docking points for being a cop tho. I’m sorry, but in this house we ain’t fucking cops.

Maj. Sigfried Gruning (Lancer Spy): Okay, I’m conflicted. Not sold on the hair, or the mustache, but I’m a military man, I love a uniform, he has a sword. (Babygirl you wanna see my sword~?) Uhhh… he also doesn’t do much in the movie.

Louis ‘The Dope’ Monteau (I’ll Give a Million): Adowable. A dumb baby. And that is why he only gets put in mid tier. Too cute for my taste. Still good for him and all the other poor homeless guys for pulling off the scam of the century on the rich bastards. Respect.

Polo (I Was An Adventuress): Same problem with Louis. He has too much boi energy. Every time I see that image where he looks up with them big ol’ eyes all I can think about is that meme the “Bitch use your words I don’t speak bottom”.

The Stranger (The Stranger on The Third Floor): Okay… uhm… this is a though one… There’s not much info on The Stranger, we don’t even know his name, we only know that he is mentally ill and killed a man. We all have our faults. I mean in this day and age who isn’t mentally ill and killed at least one person. So… mid tier. Like his scarf tho.

Paul Hyde (Mr. District Attorney): The way he got shot was bullshit. What the fuck was that about?? I hardly even remember this movie.

Joel Cairo (The Maltese Falcon): Okay… I gotta confess… I fucking hate the Maltese Falcon. There I said it. It just rubs me the wrong way that in book context and Hays code movie context Joel is gay and gets beaten up the most. Like finally a highly canon gay one for me and I get this home of phobia. Fuck this. Also I do not like Bogart and I think this movie started it lol.

Pepi (All Through the Night): I’mma get shit for this. But… but… hear me out… sometimes a man thinks with his dick and not with his brain. This is one of them. When he shows up at the bar, dressed up all nice, smoking his little cigarette… I’m weak. And yes I know he is a nazi, but I could fix him. I could fuck the fascism out of him. If not… well… //cocks gun// Mid tier, because I can’t put him higher than that. If not for the fascism he would be A tier.

Jan Bernazsky (The Conspirators): I remember nothing from this movie. I think he was a red herring. He goes in mid.

Slimane (Casbah): Casablanca the musical. Getting very gay vibes from Slimane. Why are you a detective? To catch other men. To hold them close after you shoot them. Wow faggy. Anyway, a bit conflicted and had to dock points, because again cop.

Toady (Rope of Sand): I only watched this movie, because Claude Rains is the same height as me and I was hoping to see them stand next to each other, so I can visualize the height difference. Got a very nice homosexual cig lit scene from it. I have no recollection of the movie besides that scene, but he looks fine.

Japanese Steward on the S.S. Carnatic (Around the World in Eighty Days): I can’t fuck a man on a boat I’ll get sea sick.

Kurt Bergner (The Buster Keaton Story): Were you channeling some other asshole director from your life? You looked like you knew what you were doing? Anyway, would fuck just so I could get my start in the movie industry, but this relationship ain’t gonna last longer than a headline.

Brankov (Silk Stockings): Glorious Technicolor~ I have issues with this movie. It’s the inferior Ninotchka. The Russian names are once again butchered. The dancing is nice. Go white boy, fuck up the dance floor!! Nothing else to say about it really.

Abdul (The Sad Sack): Mon petite~! If I justified Pepi being in mid-tier, I can do the same for Abdul. He was eager to kill Jerry Lewis’ character and I think the movie would have benefited from it. Still he can’t go higher, because of the… ehh… Hollywood racism. He would be top fucking tier otherwise.

Skeeter (The Big Circus): Not into clowns. (A contradictory statement. If you know you know.)

Montresor (Tales of Terror): I’m in a predicament, because I’m a cat lover and this man was mean to a cat. He is very hot tho. Sorry, babes, but you gotta go into the mid rankings. Also fix your alcohol problem, I cannot let Freud win.

Hans Beckert (M): Okay, this is going to be controversial putting the child murderer so high up on the list, but consider this. He is so pathetic when he gets thrown down the stairs that I just can’t not fuck him. I’m also willing to look past that besides murder he also probably did other things too (yeah that’s a bit harder to get past eugh…). The murder I’m fine with tho. I’m very often locked in a train car with screaming children and I mean that would make anyone start whistling the tune of Edvard Grieg’s In the Hall of the Mountain King. My dick could fix him, but if he wants to murder a child every now and then. I’m all for it.

Redakteur Stix (Die Koffer des Herrn O.F.): This man fucks. And I do mean HE fucks. Polo and Louis wish they were like Stix. He goes into A tier for terrorizing a whole town, getting laid, and getting the girl. Would you like to get the boy as well, hun~?

The General (Secret Agent): This look is absolute horrid… I fucking love it. For someone who is known to be a mustache lover I don’t ever want to see Peter with one. (I’m the one who wears the mustaches in this relationship.) This is an exception tho. It’s a gay disaster look. It’s so bad it’s hot. Extra points for the earring. (The ending to that movie was absolute bullshit tho. General your gun!!)

Prof. Sturm (Nancy Steele Is Missing!): I love it when he is a manipulative little bastard. Also he could have gotten away with it if it weren’t for someone having morals and loving his stolen adoptive child. Absolutely disgusting. The mustache and the glasses combo are acceptable (even if he looks like one of my high school teachers).

M’sieu Pig (Strange Cargo): The other incel. I’m docking points, because for most of the movie I had to watch Clark Gable be a misogynist and I already hate him. All this just to eyeball Peter Lorre… Anyway I would make that piggy squeal. A tier, but only because he shows off a bit of chest hair.

Fenninger (You’ll Find Out): Not particularly fond of this look. I like it better when his hair is a bit messy. Is one third of an evil gay polycule, so points to that. And also the long cig holder. Very gay, hun. And who can forget the og teeth. Would still drag my tongue across those chompers I don’t care what anyone says. (Mainly, because I also have similar fucked up looking messy teeth.)

Signor Ugarte (Casablanca): I’m putting him only in A tier, because he killed nazis at the start of the movie and is a desperate little homo, which is a trait I very much relate to. But Bogart… really… honey you could do so much better. Seriously y’all look me in the eye and tell me that Bogart is hot, when he plays these asshole characters. I’ll wait. Besides I’m right here. I’m ready to top you babe.

Marius (Passage To Marseilles): Love a man who is honest and proud of his professional achievements. And is very much good with his hands hello~ Dies (seriously why???) while fighting nazis. A bit of a scraggly look, but I love it. I also had to look up pics for this and turtlenecks make any man look slutty… and sir… your tits!! I need to feel them through the fabric~ Or just in general~

Dr. Einstein (Arsenic and Old Lace): He is a cute pathetic little meow meow. I want to (the following sentence had to be censored due to violating the Hays code). I am putting him only in A tier, because he is too popular, but I feel like that’s a personal bias.

Johannes Koenig (Hotel Berlin): Again a nice scraggly look. I love it~ He does get his shit together by the end and that’s good, but I wish he’d kept the five o’clock.

Contreras (Confidential Agent): I love a man who hates his job. So relatable. He does a big no no with being a sellout to the fascists, but he gets his just desserts and surprising doesn’t die from a gun, but a heart attack (and they pull a Weekend at Bernie’s with his corpse later on). He is really pathetic and I cannot control myself.

Johnny West (Three Strangers): //heavy breathing// I want him!! Finally a romantic role!! Babygirl yes!! I know you could do it!! If only you also took the money!!!!!!!!! For that last one he goes into A tier and not higher.

Gino (The Chase): Show off more of that chest hair, slut!! I would also not let this man drive (not that I can either). Besides babes the backseat has more space~

Nick (Quicksand): Blackmailing is fun when it’s not happening to you~ Also if we get together I could probably play the games for free. That’s a plus.

Paynter (Double Confession): This man was so desperate for approval. And y’all cannot tell me that he and Charlie weren’t a bit more than friends. Oh a man saves you and now you would do murders for him (except he’s a loser and is not okay with murder). Babe ditch him I would let you kill people for me. I’m not a pussy.

Dr. Karl Rothe/Dr. Karl Neumeister (The Lost One): Babygirl you have some deep rooted psychological issues that you should get checked out. Still, here’s my number. Call me, when you feel like choking me out, but not in a killing way. (Or maybe in a killing way, depends on how I feel.)

Colonel John Miguel Orlando Arragas (Congo Crossing): The straights looked at each other once and immediately kissed, so that set the tone for me. Anyway he is a cop, but he does do the right thing at the end, but still a cop. The uniform is nice. Doesn’t like his job much, so that’s kind of sexy. Eh, you know, what A tier. He is the exception. (I do hope he doesn’t expect me to say his entire name while I’m d(HAYS CODE) him down and making him swallow my (HAYS CODE).)

Nero (The Story of Mankind): Listen, I have some kinks… if you read my writings you know… I’m also drawn to a man with power, and money, and insanity. (I’m also really glad he didn’t have the chin beard like the real Nero, because that’s a deal breaker.)

Smiley (Scent of Mystery): Absolutely disappointed that this movie didn’t have a Dora the Explorer segment where the characters turn to the screen and ask the viewer if they can guess the mystery scent. Anyway hot. I love a man who knows how to be crafty regarding his job. Cheating, stealing, lying, all traits that make a honest Hungarian. Even stole someone’s wife just for the heck of it. Oh, honey~ Only A tier, because I can’t see this relationship going further than some fun in the backseat, but that’s probably enough.

Comm. Lucius Emery (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea): He has a pet shark and wears a uniform. I’m already undoing my belt. This movie was… mmm… not good tho.

Dr. Adolphus Bedlo (The Raven): He is an abusive drunk parent. But he is so wet and pathetic. Frued won, I really am just gonna get together with someone who is like my dad (the real one not Béla).

Mr. Strangdour (Muscle Beach Party): He is the strongest man alive and yet I, his silly little kitten get to top him. My only problem with him is that I cannot for the life of me remember his name for some reason so I guess he just gotta deal with being called Sourdough and Stroganoff for the rest of his life. My concern is that his stupid kid is gonna walk in one day and go “Oh, you guys are wrestling, who’s winning? 8D” and I don’t want to deal with that.

Abbott (The Man Who Knew Too Much): He is evil, he is cunning, he has a neat little hair stripe just like me! Would also kill a child, which I personally don’t think is a terrible trait (as we saw earlier). Absolute snack! Baby I’ll be your dragon, I’ll be your right hand arm-man, your silly little homo eye candy!

Dr. Gogol (Mad Love): My favorite incel!! I wanna crack his bald head open with my canines like a hardboiled egg, call him a pathetic loser, and pin him against a wall and tongue him down! But seriously the man is the equivalent of a Reddit user, he has money tho, and if I could be his kept man, I wouldn’t mind.

Colonel Gimpy/Baron Rudolph Maximillian Tagger (Crack-Up): That scene where the plane is crashed into the ocean and his hair is wet and he looks up straight into the camera… //fans self// H-hewwo… daddy… sorry… daddy… sorry… Yeah, top tier. No question.

János ‘Johnny’ Szabó (The Face Behind The Mask): I refuse to use anything, but the correct Hungarian spelling, fuck you Hollywood. Kinda meh about him before the accident, way too happy and optimistic for my liking. I like a man who is bitter and ready to kill. Also something about masks just gives people a certain allure. Gets extra points for being the only Hungarian character Peter ever played and judging from the letter he writes back home, Johnny actually knows the language haha. I wouldn’t have to translate him my stupid memes, we could just switch back and forth. Domestic bliss.

Dr. Arthur Lorencz (The Boogie Man Will Get You): Top fucking tier! The most guy ever! He is a politician, he sells snake oil, he is a doctor, and also the town sheriff, cat lover, gay! Is there something this man can’t do! Love him!

Fritz Bercovy (The Constant Nymph): I know that in the book the character is supposed to be a very antisemitic caricature, but I think it was rewritten in the movie. Also I tried multiple times to check how old Toni is, but I only kept finding it for Tessa, so I’mma just gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say that Fritz is not a groomer, unlike Lewis. With all that out of the way, I have a confessions to make. This character sent me over the edge and I did a Peter Lorre expy in my novel. I am weak. I saw him in the fur with the cane (and the whole club was looking at her) and… he really be doing boyfriend cosplay with one of my main characters. Also he has money and is willing to spend it on his SO, so… //twirls hair// I’d love to be a kept man~

Cornelius Leyden (The Mask of Dimitrios): This man was put on this wretched Earth to wear bowties and by Lucifer he makes them look good. Also he has little gray hairs on the side. And glasses!!! //heavy breathing// I need to make him scream my name all through the night!

Peter Lorre (Hollywood Canteen): That’s just my mans! That’s just my guy! That’s just my husband! My sweet cheese! My rotten soldier! My good time BOI! How could I not put him at the top? (Disclaimer: The only one topping that man is me ayyyy)

Marko (Black Angel): This man really cannot sit normally, huh. Anyway, he was hot, fruity, and a loving father. And the movie wasn’t bad either. I was actually rooting for the straights in this one.

Victor Emmric (The Verdict): Oh, he is husband material. He is a morbid little bastard, and is also romantic. A bit on the drunk side, but I don’t care. He’s hot. Would love to do art trades with him.

Kismet (My Favourite Brunette): This man is MY favourite brunette. My nasty boyfriend who holds me at knife point and spits in my mouth and calls me his bitch~ (Is that a knife in your pocket or are you just happy to see me~) I would also help this man get his citizenship.

Peter Lorre (Meet Me in Las Vegas): People who say that they are only into him when he is young and slim are weak as fuck. Oh, so just because this man is old and fat and his biological clock is not ticking anymore you don’t wanna try and get him preganant anymore??? Move over!! I’ll give this man evil milk (read: cum).

Commissioner Lamoret (Hell Ship Mutiny): I love a man who absolutely hates his job and just wants an easy life and is also willing to murder a child for it. We have so much in common~ And with my help, we would have gotten away with it. We’d be spending retirement in Bora Bora, baybeh.

Felix Gillie (The Comedy of Terrors): You see that man? That man, is my husband. We are married. He supports me and I support him. I would lie in the coffin that he made for me. I know that most peeps fall for him in Arsenic, well I’m different. I have the Father Issues and I want stability and I feel like Felix would give that to me.

Morgan Heywood (The Patsy): He was suffering, I was suffering, there was a collective suffering with this movie. Our meet-cute is me absolutely going feral and killing Jerry Lewis right in front of him. Our eyes lock as I’m covered in blood and the cops take me away. He falls in love with me right then and there. Conjugal visits right until the end of my life sentence.

Okay, y'all can go now~

#Peter Lorre #Tier List #You cannot make me tag all the movies and characters #Faustian Fables #Faustian Imagery

[polaroidcats]

which do u think wld kill a Victorian child more (or faster let’s b honest) - Shririus crabmus or vibemus

ADHHFDH THE NOISE I MADE!!!!

excellent question!

okay so my first instinct was to say vibemus but i think this needs deeper analysis:

I stand by the fact that Shririus is probably the least cursed out of the three and therefore probably least likely to kill a victorian child? Like I am no expert on victorian literature but I'm sure green ogres aren't that shocking to them, the homosexuality might be? But who realy knows? I think Shririus is fine, really.

Crabmus is definitely more cursed. I just googled the dates to get a rough idea and apparently the victorian era is 1837-1901 and the Little Mermaid was actually published in 1837 (coincindence? I think not!) so at least some victorian children were probably familiar with the original fairytale by Andersen. Now I don't remember if there are any specific crabs mentioned in the fairytale but I am going to assume Sebastian was mostly an addition by Disney. But then again stories about people who were transformed into animals and fall in love with people have been around for millenia, so if we're looking at it this way, Crabmus fits into the continuation of themes from ancient greek or roman myths, really is just a continuation of a great tradition/legacy and any smart victorian child would understand and cherish the story for that.

Now, vibemus. Again, another highly scientific quick google search tells me the first vibrator was probably invented in 1869 (amazing) to combat "Hysteria" in women. So (some) victorians also had/knew about vibrators, though under very different circumatances that we do of course. I don't think the average victorian child would know about vibrators though, so for the vast majority of victorian children the concept of a vibrator was probably completely foreign. Also, probably just the concept or sex in general, as I'm sure their sex education was ... victorian. So I think in conclusion vibemus might be the only actual cursed AU on this list, and the one with the biggest chance of shocking and killing a victorian child, due to its modern and sexual nature.

#skye tag #i love these wonderfully cursed aus so much hahaha #shririus #crabmus #vibemus #ask

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Examining advances in additive manufacturing of promising heterostructures and their biomedical applications

To the authors' knowledge, there have been no review papers that summarize the biomedical applications of heterostructures prepared by additive manufacturing. This paper aims to highlight the research progress in additive manufacturing of promising heterostructure for bioimplants. The unique interfaces, robust architectures, and synergistic effects inherent in heterostructures position them as a highly promising option for advanced biomaterials in meeting the stringent requirements for highly variable anatomy and complex functionalities from individual patients. However, the advancement of heterostructures has encountered obstacles in the precise control of crystal/phase evolution and distribution/fraction of components and structures. Luckily, additive manufacturing, known for its high efficiency, design flexibility, and high dimensional accuracy, provides a strategic solution to regulate structure and composition across multiple scales, holding the potential for developing heterostructure with unprecedented properties. But an evident void exists in the scientific literature, as comprehensive review articles that summarize the biomedical applications of heterostructures via additive manufacturing are notably absent.

Read more.

#Materials Science #Science #Heterostructures #Additive manufacturing #Biomaterials #Medical technology

[neroushalvaus]

@glamorousdrama tagged me, thanks 💖💖🥰

Three ships: Hard one! I think crowbarrow (Downton Abbey), corah (Downton Abbey as well) and SamDolly (oc couple by me & @juniper-pompadour ) ruin my life the most at this precise moment.

First ever ship: My first proper ship after learning what shipping was? Lee/Gaara from Naruto. If you count the ones I liked before I knew the term, it was probably a couple from a romcom or Elizabeth and Darcy from Pride and Prejudice.

Last song: Danse mon Esmeralda from Notre-Dame de Paris. I was listening to my list of musical songs that objectively fuck and bang.

Last film: Does the proshot version of the Swedish masterpiece of a stage musical Så som i himmelen count as a movie? No? Well Kuolleet lehdet then, I guess.

Currently reading: Sadly nothing but academic literature right now. I am re-reading the first chapters of Les Misérables over and over again thought. For scientific purposes. No, really.

Currently consuming: I was binge-listening to the podcast Maintenance Phase while cooking. Highly recommending it if you enjoy hearing smart people debunk health & dieting myths!

Currently craving: Beans. Ever since I gave up meat for lent I have become a bean monster. I've consumed beans on almost every meal recently (I was sick for a few days but right after I got better I became a bean boy again). It's not even funny. I ate white beans in tomato sauce for breakfast today like an English person, and I'm craving them again. If I was alone I'd go to the fridge and eat a spoonful of them right now.

I'm tagging @tirlittan @starlene @nowendil @angryessays @orsuliya , if y'all feel like doing it but no pressure! And if I didn't tag you but you want to do it, please consider yourself tagged!

#tag memes

[transmutationisms]

do you have any recommended readings on the fallacy of the ‘industrial revolution’ as a historical turning point?

so, i wouldn't say that the industrial revolution is a "fallacy" or that the term never describes a real historical change. it's generally accepted that the textile industry in northern britain did experience notable structural and technological change over the course of the 18th century, and that by the turn of the 19th century a combination of social, economic, colonial, and technological factors had allowed for the appearance of a new industrial-capitalist class in this context. this is not an unimportant economic development.

however, there are a few major issues that routinely crop up in secondary literature on this 'industrial revolution', and are especially pernicious in literature published in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries.

first, the wider application of a model of economic change derived from this specific episode in history. within shifting frameworks of state protection and global economic competition, cloth merchants in a few counties in the british north were able to change their business practices, including by investing in certain machinery. this was simply not universally true, though. it was not true for all industries in north britain, let alone industries in other countries, even other european powers. narratives of the IR that present this model of industrialisation as some universal process that all economic sectors in all contexts are bound to experience (or else perish) are trying to use as a totalising model what was actually a highly contingent and specific historical episode.

second, the techno-determinist bent of a lot of IR literature. technology in itself does not make social change; in the case of the textile machines in question here, many of the technologies existed well before the period we identify as the 'industrial revolution', but could not become widely used until a number of other social and conditions changed. for example, you might need certain technicians to maintain machines and operate them; you need someone to manufacture the machines themselves; many of the machines we associate with the IR required a shift toward a production model resembling more the factory floor than the individual weaver or seamstress working out of their own domestic space. a technology existing is not synonymous with, or causal of, its widespread adoption; machines on their own do not explain or cause mechanisation.

third, the role of british nationalism and neoliberal agendas in much of the IR historiography. this led to a great deal of literature presenting the IR as a triumph of 'liberal democracy' over 'state regulation', with corresponding valorisation of britain's supposedly weak state (not true; economic liberalism has always involved quite a bit of state protection), culture of 'individual liberty' (lmao), and enlightened institutions of democracy and scientific objectivity (& the techno-determinist narrative plays in here, obviously). this view was especially spearheaded by von mises and hayek in the 20th century.

fourth, the model of global economic change as emanating from britain (on more expansive models, also from the us and parts of europe) and spreading to the rest of the world in a unidirectional way that completely ignores and obscures colonial dynamics and workers' resistance in favour of a simple narrative of techno-economic progress and stadial history. relatedly, the fact that even in the northern british counties where the IR proper really can be said to have occurred, the events we now see as part of a smooth overarching narrative were experienced at the time as random, disconnected happenstance dependent on, again, a dizzying array of social and cultural factors as well as the decisions of communities, workers, and merchants.

some people do eschew the term "industrial revolution" altogether, generally citing some combination of the above issues. others use it in a temporally and locally restricted sense, or with heavy caveats; some continue to use it in ways that perpetuate one or more of the problems i've outlined here. generally it is agreed upon that industrialisation matters, as a historical process, and has occurred with particularly rapidity and specific characteristics since the mid-to-late 18th century. what's at stake is more the idea of a 'revolution': whose, when, where, how, and with what consequences.

anyway:

the industrial revolution: the state, knowledge and global trade, by william j ashworth

africans and the industrial revolution in england: a study in international trade and economic development, by joseph e inikori

fossil capital: the rise of steam power and the roots of global warming, by andreas malm

technology in the industrial revolution, by barbara hahn

reconceptualizing the industrial revolution, ed. jeff horn, leonard n rosenband, & merritt roe smith

heroes of invention: technology, liberalism, and british identity, 1750–1914, by christine macleod

#industrial revolution #book recs

[hermannsprecursors]

hi! who's your favourite oc? May I have some fun facts about them?

HI KAAAAAZ KICKS MY FEETS AND GIGGLES.

Hello!! Well I mean if you read on my LAST post my current favorite oc is Lt. Commander Ivanov, but that's just because I was conceptualizing them and shit and then they grabbed T'kov by the throat and threw her into the wall, rightfully claiming their place.

This is them! Say hello!

As for fun facts!

They were initially coded to just be a highly-adaptive computer program, designed by Mikhail Ivanov who, highkey, is a cult leader. But once put into an android body, the program did what it does best-- adapt. And it became Fredyenka.

Despite their origin, nobody really knows why they don't have any recollection of their identity as an android-- the hypothesis is that they found computer files and subconsciously crafted a past for themself out of said files-- and that there's something in their coding that prevents them from knowing the truth...

They can eat! Their favorite food is a butterscotch sundae

Sometimes, their coding takes over entirely, and they have no recollection of their actions when that happens. It's a rare occurrence, but it does happen, and boy can it be terrifying

They have a strange fascination with the religious beliefs of different alien cultures

They have a pet snake named Snakespeare

They LOVE classic Earth literature

Sometimes they just kind of. Freeze up and become unresponsive when overloaded with emotions? it freaks people out Freddie stop doing that

They help the cadets out with their homework ALL the fucking time. They've gained a reputation in the academy for it.

They have a tendency to just stare because like. They don't HAVE to blink technically. And then people get weirded out like "dude what's wrong" and then they go "oh sorry" and blink

They learned flute because the Ulysses and Leviathan wanted to make a joint band and then it NEVER happened and it made them MAD

Basically they're just a freak and I love them

They went through the academy at an accelerated rate, and became a lieutenant commander after just 4 years of service. They're very adaptable and learn quickly, able to take and fill a position in any service track. They're exceptionally proficient in scientific research and computer science. They can be stubborn and difficult to get along with sometimes, but overall, they're hard-working and amicable, just so long as you live up to their standards. Don't think too much about what you're saying either. They know. They always know, and often won't engage you in conversation if you overthink and bore them. They will hold that grudge, too. Just be yourself, and don't worry about it! After all...

You wouldn't want to displease your savior, would you?

#star trek #star trek oc #oc #original character #hermann says shit #look at this freak #what a guy #thank you for asking about them #please ask more

[kyoxyukiforever]

The Science of A/B/O

Part 4 - Mating

Part 1 (The Basics), Part 2 (Heats and Ruts), Part 3 (Scents and Pheromones), Part 4 (Mating), Part 5 (Genetics and Presenting)

Warning: sex ed that no one asked for and all that that implies, discussions of knotting, slick, mating bites, semen, ejaculation, sexual anatomy and physiology of both humans and animals, and the most PG diagrams I could manage to find on the internet

MATING BITES

It seems like the reason A/B/O fiction depicts a scent gland as being on the neck is for the mating bite. The mating bite is based on an actual phenomenon that occurs in nature. Plenty of animals will bite their partners while mating, from cats to weasels to spiders. That said, mating bites in nature aren’t a way of forming or strengthening a bond. Instead, it’s considered one of many behaviors in nature that are classified as sexual coercion. When mating bites occur in real life, it’s to prevent the other animal from moving, escaping, or attacking the one delivering the bite. There isn't even a scent gland there - at least not that I could find in any of the animals I researched who exhibit this behavior.

Now, I'm just reading through existing papers and studies and applying them to the tropes that exist in A/B/O, mostly so you guys don't have to wade through hundreds of pages of densely worded scientific prose, but I don't have the expertise needed to invent new science, which I would need to do in order to explain mating bites in A/B/O.

Luckily for me, someone else has already done that.

@brainsforbabyjesus also did an in depth dive into the science of A/B/O over on AO3, which I highly encourage you to check out!

I actually wish that I had come across it before I did all of the research for these posts, but oh well. On the bright side, there are now two pieces of literature on the science of A/B/O for your perusal, each of which resulted from completely separate research methods, which means if you read both, you'll have a wealth of information coming from totally uncoordinated sources!

All that said, @brainsforbabyjesus seems to have a better understanding of applied biology than I do, and they invented a way for mating bites to work!

I'm not going to linger on it here, because you really should check out their work using this link or the link above (yes I linked it twice, go read it - mating bites are in chapter 4!). I'm just going to do a very bare bones rundown of their theory in order to continue on with my own research.

They suggest that there are three glands located on the back and either side of the neck (plus some surrounding nerves) that they call "the coniguim glandis (literally marriage gland)" and that during a heat/rut, either during or immediately following an orgasm, a "bonding enzyme" is produced inside an alpha/omega's mouth. When this enzyme is introduced to the coniguim glandis, the bite recipient literally gets their biology rewritten.

If that sounds fantastical, it is, but it's also firmly based in real world science, and if you want to understand it more in depth, PLEASE go check out their work. They also offer explanations for true mates and the trope of dying when one's mate dies. Happy reading!

Back to my own research and conclusions: the production of an enzyme in the mouth isn't the only interesting thing that happens to alphas and omegas during or immediately following an orgasm (although I will take this opportunity to posit that maybe the enzyme has anesthetic properties to make the bite hurt less).

That's right folks! We're finally getting to...

KNOTTING!

Let's just... let's just do this.

Knotting is something that happens in real life, specifically in canid mammals like dogs and wolves. You probably already knew that, but let's get into specifics. The knot, or bulbus glandis (pause for laughter) is an erectile tissue structure at the base of the penis, and not actually a gland. Immediately before ejaculation, this knot does exactly what you would expect erectile tissue to do: it becomes firm and engorged.

The purpose of this structure is to lock, tie, or knot the two animals together. This ensures that the penis remains in the vagina for the entire duration of ejaculation. Now uh, for humans, this isn't actually a difficult thing to accomplish, seeing as the average ejaculation duration of a human male is 4.2 seconds, or 10 seconds at the very most. Canids, on the other hand, will remain knotted or tied together for anywhere between 2 and 45 minutes, and ejaculation lasts the whole friggin' time.

I know that there's a pretty big gap between two and forty-five minutes, and this is largely down to the specific type of canid. Since I'm sure you're wondering: in wolves, the tie, or coitus entrapus (yes, really) typically lasts between 15 and 30 minutes, although it might be as short as 5 minutes, or as long as 40 minutes. Yet again, the timing isn't really narrowed down much further. So why is there such a huge disparity?

Well, when a wolf's knot becomes erect, it stays that way until literally all of the sperm is gone.

For comparison, a human ejaculates an average of 2 to 5 milliliters of semen, with each milliliter containing about 100 million sperm. Dogs? One milliliter of semen contains 300 million sperm, and they can ejaculate up to 30 milliliters. If you are remarkably quick at mental math, you might have calculated that this amounts to a total of nine billion (9,000,000,000) sperm for a single ejaculation, and you'd be right... mathematically speaking. In actuality, it only comes to about 2 billion, even at the 30 ml mark.

Obviously, the math doesn't add up. Why? Because ejaculation, in both humans and wolves, occurs in stages. As far as wolves go, the general consensus is that the first 30 seconds of ejaculate come from the prostate gland, followed by sperm-rich semen for a couple minutes, and then more from the prostate gland for anywhere between 6 and 45 minutes. With humans, because of how brief our ejaculation is, we tend to think of semen as everything mixed together all at once, but prostatic fluid does cleanse the urethra for the sperm before it makes its journey in humans as well.

So the reason there aren't 9 billion sperm in a dog's ejaculate is because not all of the ejaculate has sperm in it. Still though, 2 billion is nothing to sneeze at. What does this mean for our alphas?

This is another thing that is up to author discretion. The amount of ejaculate correlates in part with how long it has been since the last ejaculation, and for dogs, whose females are monoestrous, the males are really saving up for the whole house. Meanwhile, humans are paying monthly rent in a crappy apartment complex. Basically, human's tend to be a lot more wasteful of their genetic material. Dogs wait until they're already tied before ejaculating in order to maximize their odds of reproducing, but humans will settle for a hand and a computer screen.

So presumably this means that an alpha would have a shorter ejaculation, but uh... not necessarily. Remember that a dog's semen is only sperm rich for one or two minutes. Most of the semen is composed of prostatic fluid, accounting for up to forty-five minutes of the time the animals spend tied together.

In humans, prostatic fluid accounts for 20-30% of the semen ejaculated - significantly less than a dog. Here's the thing, though: human and canid prostate glands are pretty much the same size, and it isn't out of the question to suggest that when an alpha successfully achieves a tie, they might expel a comparable amount of prostatic fluid to dogs. This almost certainly wouldn't happen without a tie - although I suppose that physiologically the body could be tricked into it by using a sleeve of some kind. Without having successfully knotted, the alpha's ejaculation would likely look exactly the same as a normal human's.

That said, an alpha's ejaculation doesn't need to look like a dog's when they do knot. They could just as easily have the 4.2 second one normal people have, followed by a knot for some duration of time determined by the author, no further contribution required. Regardless, the amount of sperm in a male alpha's semen would be the same, no matter how much prostatic fluid you decide to include. Human sperm takes 74 days to mature fully, and completely emptying your, uh, bank account the way dogs do would leave you completely infertile for 74 days following a single orgasm - not exactly a reproductive advantage.

Now you might be thinking that coming for 45 minutes straight sounds absolutely insane, and sure, it has the potential to be very hot and very messy, but at what cost? I feel like I'm getting a cramp just thinking about it! Luckily for the alphas in this scenario, they don't have to do all the work themselves.

That's right, we're finally gonna talk about omegas, and how they contribute to the mating process!

Now before I get to the slick (yes, I hear you, just hang on a sec), I want to introduce you to a little something called the constrictor vestibuli muscles. These are a series of muscles just inside the opening of a female canine's vagina, and they are literally designed to clamp down around a knot and milk it.

The constrictor vestibuli reflexively (involuntarily) clamp down when they detect the presence of a knot, and once they have, they will contract and release around the knot repeatedly to help the male remain erect and continue to ejaculate. Just like how you can't stop yourself from ejaculating once you've started, the constrictor vestibuli are going to do their job, regardless of what the animal (or omega) they belong to might want. I thought this was an important thing to bring up, since I haven't really come across it while reading A/B/O fanfiction. It's interesting to me that both alphas and omegas would have these reflexive reactions while mating.

Okay, let's get to the important thing.

SLICK

In A/B/O, omegas produce slick, a form of natural lubrication, while they're in heat. Human women also produce natural lubricant using something called the Bartholin's gland (which is called the Cowper's gland in men and is actually what produces precum), but the way slick is depicted in fanfiction tells us that it's something... more significant, let's say.

We can once again turn to animals in heat to figure out how the natural lubricant really works and what it is. Animals start producing 'slick' during their preheat, or proestrus phase, and it's not coming from the Bartholin's gland. Instead, it comes directly from the cervix.

The technical term for this 'slick' is cervical mucus, which doesn't sound nearly as appealing. What is appealing about all of this is the fact that humans also produce cervical mucus. That's right! Humans produce slick just like animals do! In fact, women trying to get pregnant can identify when they are at their most fertile by the texture of their cervical mucus.

Cervical mucus serves two different purposes at two different parts of an estrous/menstrual cycle. If it's not a good time for fertilization to occur, it will be dry, tacky, or sticky. This texture of mucus is too thick for sperm to swim through. Sorry guys, this uterus is closed, please come back during regular business hours.

If it is a good time, then it serves a different function - the complete opposite one, in fact. Two days before ovulation in humans, or the beginning of preheat in animals with estrous cycles, the mucus changes to a creamy, yogurt-like consistency. By the time the body is ready, or when heat begins properly, it will be slippery and stretchy, resembling raw egg whites. This type of cervical mucus is ideal for sperm to swim through, maximizing the chance of fertilization.

Also, don't blame me for comparing the textures to foods, it's just what doctors and scientists tend to compare them to in the relevant literature. The egg whites in particular were brought up in nearly every paper I read with shocking consistency, so uh. Yeah, slick is egg whites, I guess.

One last thing before I leave this part of A/B/O Science - we talked a lot today about prostates. Like... a lot. I just wanted to address something:

Could male omegas have prostates?

You might remember that way back in the very first part of this series we discussed how certain body parts start off as the same thing in utero and become different things as the fetus develops? The example from back then was the gonads, which become either the ovaries or the testes. Well we have something similar with the prostate.

In females, the Skene's gland is homologous to the prostate in men, and it functions in much the same way. It stops you from pissing yourself (yeah, fun fact), and it produces prostate-specific antigen (PSA), which in men is designed to "water down" the semen so it can travel more easily through the urethra. The PSA produced in the Skene's gland doesn't have any sperm to deal with, but many scientists believe that PSA is what 'female ejaculation' actually is. So it would seem that the answer is no, male omegas can't have prostates...

...or can they?

Trans men who have been on testosterone for long periods of time can actually develop prostate tissue. In fact, after being on T for 43 months, seven out of eight trans men had some prostate tissue growth. 69% (heh) of the tissue was even shown to be producing PSA!

Now, because this prostate tissue isn't attached to the urethra, it doesn't contribute to the semen. It may or may not enter the bloodstream as inactive PSA, which is perfectly normal and happens to a portion of the PSA produced by a prostate belonging to a cis man as well, but there's no data on that yet. This discovery is actually very new, so there's a lot left to learn. What we do know is that this tissue appears totally harmless. None of the individuals shown to have this growth have gone on to develop prostate cancer or any other related issue - although many people will have a cancer scare when this tissue first appears, as it can easily be mistaken for a tumor at first glance.

Since we determined early on that male omegas would have a normal amount of androgens (the stuff that gives you chest hair and makes your voice drop) for a human male, we can also assume that they would see growth of prostate tissue. In fact, some intersex people have the exact same growth, although it is often further along than you would see in a trans man, because they've had those androgens for longer.

Scientists took tissue samples, and 100% of this surprise prostate tissue expressed androgen receptors. Basically, it's safe to assume that androgens, the same stuff that would make a male omega grow chest hair and have a deeper voice, would also cause them to grow a prostate.

That said, the Skene's gland would still be fulfilling the function of the prostate. Any prostate-specific antigen that occurs in ejaculate would be made there. Also, because omegas aren't producing sperm, their ejaculate wouldn't be nearly as thick as ejaculate with sperm in it. Instead, it would look and feel pretty much like milk. Also, if you want alphas to ejaculate for forty minutes, most of it would be milky as well.

This has been your PSA PSA for the day!

Next up on A/B/O Science: GENETICS AND PRESENTING

Part 1 (The Basics), Part 2 (Heats and Ruts), Part 3 (Scents and Pheromones), Part 4 (Mating), Part 5 (Genetics and Presenting)

#a/b/o science #alpha/beta/omega dynamics #alpha/beta/omega #a/b/o #omegaverse #alpha beta omega #alpha #beta #omega #alpha/beta/omega verse #a/b/o verse #a/b/o headcanon

[mariacallous]

The original version of this story appeared in Quanta Magazine.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Those aren’t just lyrics from the Queen song “Bohemian Rhapsody.” They’re also the questions that the brain must constantly answer while processing streams of visual signals from the eyes and purely mental pictures bubbling out of the imagination. Brain scan studies have repeatedly found that seeing something and imagining it evoke highly similar patterns of neural activity. Yet for most of us, the subjective experiences they produce are very different.

“I can look outside my window right now, and if I want to, I can imagine a unicorn walking down the street,” said Thomas Naselaris, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota. The street would seem real and the unicorn would not. “It’s very clear to me,” he said. The knowledge that unicorns are mythical barely plays into that: A simple imaginary white horse would seem just as unreal.

So “why are we not constantly hallucinating?” asked Nadine Dijkstra, a postdoctoral fellow at University College London. A study she led, recently published in Nature Communications, provides an intriguing answer: The brain evaluates the images it is processing against a “reality threshold.” If the signal passes the threshold, the brain thinks it’s real; if it doesn’t, the brain thinks it’s imagined.

Such a system works well most of the time because imagined signals are typically weak. But if an imagined signal is strong enough to cross the threshold, the brain takes it for reality.

Although the brain is very competent at assessing the images in our minds, it appears that “this kind of reality checking is a serious struggle,” said Lars Muckli, a professor of visual and cognitive neurosciences at the University of Glasgow. The new findings raise questions about whether variations or alterations in this system could lead to hallucinations, invasive thoughts, or even dreaming.

“They’ve done a great job, in my opinion, of taking an issue that philosophers have been debating about for centuries and defining models with predictable outcomes and testing them,” Naselaris said.

When Perceptions and Imagination Mix

Dijkstra’s study of imagined images was born in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, when quarantines and lockdowns interrupted her scheduled work. Bored, she started going through the scientific literature on imagination—and then spent hours combing papers for historical accounts of how scientists tested such an abstract concept. That’s how she came upon a 1910 study conducted by the psychologist Mary Cheves West Perky.

Perky asked participants to picture fruits while staring at a blank wall. As they did so, she secretly projected extremely faint images of those fruits—so faint as to be barely visible—on the wall and asked the participants if they saw anything. None of them thought they saw anything real, although they commented on how vivid their imagined image seemed. “If I hadn’t known I was imagining, I would have thought it real,” one participant said.

A 1910 study by the psychologist Mary Cheves West Perky found that when our perceptions match what we are imagining, we assume that their inputs are imaginary.Photograph: DOI/Quanta Magazine

Perky’s conclusion was that when our perception of something matches what we know we are imagining, we will assume it is imaginary. It eventually came to be known in psychology as the Perky effect. “It’s a huge classic,” said Bence Nanay, a professor of philosophical psychology at the University of Antwerp. It became kind of a “compulsory thing when you write about imagery to say your two cents about the Perky experiment.”

In the 1970s, the psychology researcher Sydney Joelson Segal revived interest in Perky’s work by updating and modifying the experiment. In one follow-up study, Segal asked participants to imagine something, such as the New York City skyline, while he projected something else faintly onto the wall—such as a tomato. What the participants saw was a mix of the imagined image and the real one, such as the New York City skyline at sunset. Segal’s findings suggested that perception and imagination can sometimes “quite literally mix,” Nanay said.

Not all studies that aimed to replicate Perky’s findings succeeded. Some of them involved repeated trials for the participants, which muddied the results: Once people know what you’re trying to test, they tend to change their answers to what they think is correct, Naselaris said.

So Dijkstra, under the direction of Steve Fleming, a metacognition expert at University College London, set up a modern version of the experiment that avoided the problem. In their study, participants never had a chance to edit their answers because they were tested only once. The work modeled and examined the Perky effect and two other competing hypotheses for how the brain tells reality and imagination apart.

Evaluation Networks

One of those alternative hypotheses says that the brain uses the same networks for reality and imagination, but that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scans don’t have high enough resolution for neuroscientists to discern the differences in how the networks are used. One of Muckli’s studies, for example, suggests that in the brain’s visual cortex, which processes images, imaginary experiences are coded in a more superficial layer than real experiences are.

With functional brain imaging, “we’re squinting our eyes,” Muckli said. Within each equivalent of a pixel in a brain scan, there are about 1,000 neurons, and we can’t see what each one is doing.

The other hypothesis, suggested by studies led by Joel Pearson at the University of New South Wales, is that the same pathways in the brain code for both imagination and perception, but imagination is just a weaker form of perception.

During the pandemic lockdown, Dijkstra and Fleming recruited for an online study. Four hundred participants were told to look at a series of static-filled images and imagine diagonal lines tilting through them to the right or left. Between each trial, they were asked to rate how vivid the imagery was on a scale of 1 to 5. What the participants did not know was that in the last trial, the researchers slowly raised the intensity of a faint projected image of diagonal lines—tilted either in the direction the participants were told to imagine or in the opposite direction. The researchers then asked the participants if what they saw was real or imagined.

Dijkstra expected that she would find the Perky effect—that when the imagined image matched the projected one, the participants would see the projection as the product of their imagination. Instead, the participants were much more likely to think the image was really there.

Yet there was at least an echo of the Perky effect in those results: Participants who thought the image was there saw it more vividly than the participants who thought it was all their imagination.

In a second experiment, Dijkstra and her team didn’t present an image during the last trial. But the result was the same: The people who rated what they were seeing as more vivid were also more likely to rate it as real.

The observations suggest that imagery in our mind’s eye and real perceived images in the world do get mixed together, Dijkstra said. “When this mixed signal is strong or vivid enough, we think it reflects reality.” It’s likely that there’s some threshold above which visual signals feel real to the brain and below which they feel imagined, she thinks. But there could also be a more gradual continuum.

To learn what’s happening within a brain trying to distinguish reality from imagination, the researchers reanalyzed brain scans from a previous study in which 35 participants vividly imagined and perceived various images, from watering cans to roosters.

In keeping with other studies, they found that the activity patterns in the visual cortex in the two scenarios were very similar. “Vivid imagery is more like perception, but whether faint perception is more like imagery is less clear,” Dijkstra said. There were hints that looking at a faint image could produce a pattern similar to that of imagination, but the differences weren’t significant and need to be examined further.

Scans of brain function show that imagined and perceived images trigger similar patterns of activity, but the signals are weaker for the imagined ones (at left).Courtesy of Nadine Dijkstra/Quanta Magazine

What is clear is that the brain must be able to accurately regulate how strong a mental image is to avoid confusion between fantasy and reality. “The brain has this really careful balancing act that it has to perform,” Naselaris said. “In some sense it is going to interpret mental imagery as literally as it does visual imagery.”

They found that the strength of the signal might be read or regulated in the frontal cortex, which analyzes emotions and memories (among its other duties). But it’s not yet clear what determines the vividness of a mental image or the difference between the strength of the imagery signal and the reality threshold. It could be a neurotransmitter, changes to neuronal connections or something totally different, Naselaris said.

It could even be a different, unidentified subset of neurons that sets the reality threshold and dictates whether a signal should be diverted into a pathway for imagined images or a pathway for genuinely perceived ones—a finding that would tie the first and third hypotheses together neatly, Muckli said.

Even though the findings are different from his own results, which support the first hypothesis, Muckli likes their line of reasoning. It’s an “exciting paper,” he said. It’s an “intriguing conclusion.”

But imagination is a process that involves much more than just looking at a few lines on a noisy background, said Peter Tse, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Dartmouth College. Imagination, he said, is the capacity to look at what’s in your cupboard and decide what to make for dinner, or (if you’re the Wright brothers) to take a propeller, stick it on a wing and imagine it flying.

The differences between Perky’s findings and Dijkstra’s could be entirely due to differences in their procedures. But they also hint at another possibility: that we could be perceiving the world differently than our ancestors did.

Her study didn’t focus on belief in an image’s reality but was more about the “feeling” of reality, Dijkstra said. The authors speculate that because projected images, video, and other representations of reality are commonplace in the 21st century, our brains may have learned to evaluate reality slightly differently than people did just a century ago.

Even though participants in this experiment “were not expecting to see something, it’s still more expected than if you’re in 1910 and you’ve never seen a projector in your life,” Dijkstra said. The reality threshold today is therefore likely much lower than in the past, so it may take an imagined image that’s much more vivid to pass the threshold and confuse the brain.

A Basis for Hallucinations

The findings open up questions about whether the mechanism could be relevant to a wide range of conditions in which the distinction between imagination and perception dissolves. Dijkstra speculates, for example, that when people start to drift off to sleep and reality begins blending with the dream world, their reality threshold might be dipping. In conditions like schizophrenia, where there is a “general breakdown of reality,” there could be a calibration issue, Dijkstra said.

“In psychosis, it could be either that their imagery is so good that it just hits that threshold, or it could be that their threshold is off,” said Karolina Lempert, an assistant professor of psychology at Adelphi University who was not involved in the study. Some studies have found that in people who hallucinate, there’s a sort of sensory hyperactivity, which suggests that the image signal is increased. But more research is needed to establish the mechanism by which hallucinations emerge, she added. “After all, most people who experience vivid imagery do not hallucinate.”

Nanay thinks it would be interesting to study the reality thresholds of people who have hyperphantasia, an extremely vivid imagination that they often confuse with reality. Similarly, there are situations in which people suffer from very strong imagined experiences that they know are not real, as when hallucinating on drugs or in lucid dreams. In conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, people often “start seeing things that they didn’t want to,” and it feels more real than it should, Dijkstra said.

Some of these problems may involve failures in brain mechanisms that normally help make these distinctions. Dijkstra thinks it might be fruitful to look at the reality thresholds of people who have aphantasia, the inability to consciously imagine mental images.

The mechanisms by which the brain distinguishes what’s real from what’s imaginary could also be related to how it distinguishes between real and fake (inauthentic) images. In a world where simulations are getting closer to reality, distinguishing between real and fake images is going to get increasingly challenging, Lempert said. “I think that maybe it’s a more important question than ever.”

Dijkstra and her team are now working to adapt their experiment to work in a brain scanner. “Now that lockdown is over, I want to look at brains again,” she said.

She eventually hopes to figure out if they can manipulate this system to make imagination feel more real. For example, virtual reality and neural implants are now being investigated for medical treatments, such as to help blind people see again. The ability to make experiences feel more or less real, she said, could be really important for such applications.

It’s not outlandish, given that reality is a construct of the brain.

“Underneath our skull, everything is made up,” Muckli said. “We entirely construct the world, in its richness and detail and color and sound and content and excitement. … It is created by our neurons.”

That means one person’s reality is going to be different from another person’s, Dijkstra said: “The line between imagination and reality is just not so solid.”

[doctordisinformation]

Medical Misinformation Rating System:

1) Source(s): A) Does the creator claim to have the credibility/knowledge to accurately disseminate the information in the post/article/reblog? (YES = 1)

Non-doctors are obviously allowed to give medical advice (and some of it can be well-informed, useful, and good)

It is fradulent to pass oneself off as a medical doctor without a practicing license. Always consider that an individual may not be a certified doctor in easy-to-manipulate and anonymous online spaces (e.g., tumblr, facebook, twitter, etc.).

If the OP has stated somewhere that they have expertise/background/experience with a field relevant to the post, then this point is given.

B) Does the post/article/reblog link to primary information sources (e.g., scholarly journal articles (research based), theses, dissertations, symposia and conference proceedings, interviews, and autobiographies)? (YES = 0.5) Is the information source relevant? (YES = 0.5)

Secondary information sources (e.g., textbooks, books, biographies) can also be highly authentic. It is still important to follow the same skepticism as with primary sources.

Tertiary information sources (e.g., Wikipedia, encyclopedias/dictionaries, manuals/handbooks) should really only be used as a launch-pad for further primary research.

All three sources should be properly citing primary sources in-text and on a references/bibliography/citations page (or be properly linked).

Relevancy to the topic at hand is key. A cited article could itself be authentic, but (1) be misinterpreted either on purpose or on accident, (2) irrelevant to the arguments/statements/topic, (3) be cited by mistake, or cited (4) as a means to appear more authentic.

Only the links provided in the post/article/reblog are assessed. Citations in a cited article are not assessed. Studies "talked about" but not cited are not assessed.

C) If the article links an information source, for one randomly selected link, does the citation come from an accredited journal (i.e., high-quality and peer-reviewed) and publisher? (YES = 0.2) Is the full-text public and available? (YES = 0.2) Does the primary author represent an accredited university/college/organization? (YES = 0.2) Does the article itself cite primary research? (YES = 0.2) Are the vibes of the article good? (YES = 0.2)

Highest ranked medical journals: The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Nature Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association

Largest academic journal publishers: Springer, Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Wiley, SAGE

D) If the article links an information source, for the same randomly selected link, is the citation objective and thorough? (YES = 0.25) Do the results match the conclusions drawn? (YES = 0.25) Is the research design highest standard/best practice? (YES = 0.25) Do the authors cite themselves more than expected in the body of the work? (NO = 0.25)

An overabundance of author citations is considered bad form and can often lead to bias.

Research designs can be ranked in terms of the strength of their conclusions (lowest to highest: editorials/expert opinion, case studies (with control is better), cohort studies, quasi-experiments, randomized control trials, systematic review/meta analyses).

2) Authenticity/timeliness: A) Is the post recent (i.e., created within the last year) AND the information matches current literature? (YES = 1)

Search Google Scholar, scientific journals/publishers, and other primary sources to see if the information provided appears to match current views and beliefs.

Current posts/articles/reblogs that spread misinformation or disinformation fail this question if authentic information contradicting the post appears to be available at the time of posting.

B) Is the randomly selected citation recent (i.e., published within the last two decades) AND the information matches current literature? (YES = 1)

Ideas change over time. Sometimes what was believed to be true is no longer true.

C) Does the OP gain from the information dissemination (e.g., financially, advertising, clout/popularity, shock value)? (NO = 1)

If the information appears to benefit the OP in some way, then red flags should be raised about its authenticity, as their interest may be more selfish than helpful.

D) Is there a statement of further inquiry? (YES = 1)

Credible sources of information often acknowledge that there is more that is not known. They will suggest questions for further research and/or to speak to a doctor/professional if you are unsure.

That being said, sometimes these statements are used as a means to avoid responsibility.

3) Emotionality: A) Is the tone of the post/article/reblog objective? (YES = 1)

Anger indicates the reblogger/poster may have been hurt by something relevant to the content of the post. Enthusiasm could be excitement or a statement of "how could you not know this!?". Paranoia (e.g., X person/organization is trying to hide this from you) could be a sign of disinformation.

Sensational headlines or "stop scrolling and read this!" posts are intended to grab attention, the purpose being to get the information to as many readers as possible. Dig further into the information provided.

Information should be provided as objectively as possible.

B) Is there direct slander, discrimination, or hateful speech against a single individual or group of people? (NO = 1)

Generalizations, insults, and/or statements diminishing the integrity of someone(s) are inherently subjective and often indicative of poorer quality and authenticity of the information provided. Hate can be described as abusive language, aggression (or threats), cyberbullying, personal attacks, provocation, discrimination, and/or toxic speech.

C) Are the conclusions/interpretations of the post and/or citation problematic? (NO = 1)

If the information serves to hurt a population, group, and/or minority then it is likely to be mis- or dis-informaiton. Similarly to subjectivity and hateful speech, the information is likely intended to fuel further hurt rather than be factual.

Other problematic conclusions include claims about massive (or near-magical) changes to lifestyle (e.g., diet, sleep, exercise) to improve health or cure diseases/disorders. Trust your gut if the information feels outlandish.

D) Does the information appear to confirm an OPs preconceived bias? (NO = 1)

Ask yourself whether the information being provided aligns with how a poster might expect the world to be. Investigate the rest of their blog to see if their other posts are similar in nature.

This question is failed if the OP has posted something similar within the last 20 posts (reblogs don't count).

Confirmation bias often colours the information the OP chooses to disseminate.

You too are not immune to propaganda. Perhaps surprisingly, we are almost always biased in the information we choose to interact with (i.e., always investigate).

4) Other: A) Is the post/article/reblog a joke? (YES = J+)

Along with tonality, it is important to recognize if a piece is a satirical or humorous work. Assess if the content is outlandish or absurd on purpose--usually for laughs.

---

Descriptive Rank Definition:

Poor: 1-3

Mediocre: 4-6

Adequate: 7-9

Excellent: 10-12

#medical rating system #health #misinformation #disinformation #doctor disinformation