For the 15th anniversary of Digimon Adventure 01, they are releasing toys of the original digivice in their orginal color and the crests and tags of the digidestined. No news as of yet if they will be adding the Crest of Kindness later, but this is a damn good start.
To some people, Digimon is a fictional franchise. To others, it’s a television show they used to watch when they were children. To me, it’s real. Let me explain.
Digimon taught me the core values on what it means to be a Digidestined. A Digidestined embodies COURAGE, LOVE, and SINCERITY.
To be COURAGEOUS when the situation at hand puts you in a fearful position. To LOVE those you hold near to your heart. To be SINCERE and genuine to the people you meet.
Being a Digidestined is being RELIABLE and KNOWLEDGABLE. When people have put FAITH on you and RELY you, you should always try and pull through. It means to be KNOWLEDGABLE of every situation you come into and not be ignorant.
Digimon taught me the value of FRIENDSHIP. That these people in your life are there to help you grow and become a better person. It taught me to cherish those relationships with special people in your life. It taught me to be KIND, even to those who are not.
Most importantly, being a Digidestined means to always have HOPE and to be a bright LIGHT in the world. The world can sometimes be grim, but it doesn’t have to be like that all the time. MIRACLES happen when you have HOPE.
That’s why Digimon is important to me. Being a Digidestined is being a decent person and embodying goodness through times of darkness.
International Digidestined, you are the change in this world. I believe that we can change this world together.
New research has questioned the reliability of neuroscience studies, saying that conclusions could be misleading due to small sample sizes.
A team led by academics from the University of Bristol reviewed 48 articles on neuroscience meta-analysis which were published in 2011 and concluded that most had an average power of around 20 per cent – a finding which means the chance of the average study discovering the effect being investigated is only one in five.
The paper, being published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, reveals that small, low-powered studies are ‘endemic’ in neuroscience, producing unreliable research which is inefficient and wasteful.
It focuses on how low statistical power – caused by low sample size of studies, small effects being investigated, or both – can be misleading and produce more false scientific claims than high-powered studies.
It also illustrates how low power reduces a study’s ability to detect any effects and shows that when discoveries are claimed, they are more likely to be false or misleading.
The paper claims there is substantial evidence that a large proportion of research published in scientific literature may be unreliable as a consequence.
Another consequence is that the findings are overestimated because smaller studies consistently give more positive results than larger studies. This was found to be the case for studies using a diverse range of methods, including brain imaging, genetics and animal studies.
Kate Button, from the School of Social and Community Medicine, and Marcus Munafò, from the School of Experimental Psychology, led a team of researchers from Stanford University, the University of Virginia and the University of Oxford.
She said: “There’s a lot of interest at the moment in improving the reliability of science. We looked at neuroscience literature and found that, on average, studies had only around a 20 per cent chance of detecting the effects they were investigating, even if the effects are real. This has two important implications - many studies lack the ability to give definitive answers to the questions they are testing, and many claimed findings are likely to be incorrect or unreliable.”
The study concludes that improving the standard of results in neuroscience, and enabling them to be more easily reproduced, is a key priority and requires attention to well-established methodological principles.
It recommends that existing scientific practices can be improved with small changes or additions to methodologies, such as acknowledging any limitations in the interpretation of results; disclosing methods and findings transparently; and working collaboratively to increase the total sample size and power.
Im in my second semester in my masters for industrial organizational psychology, or the interdisciplinary study of business psychology & psychometrics, or the construction & development of empirical tests.
I am having some issues with Myers and Briggs empiricism and have a proposition for the community. If you are passionate about Myers and Briggs I encourage you to read on.
A little about me - I have studied Myers and Briggs and been apart of some MBTI community since 2010. Anyone who has studied MBTI in depth is an advocate of the functions for understanding. Anyone who has studied it for a bit probably has run into roadblocks for how to explain that MBTI is not "scientifically valid or reliable". This simply means that the MBTI test has not been found to be generalizable from a sample to a population.
Over the past 5 months it has come to my attention (and dismay) that the work psychologists I know and respect deem MBTI a pseudoscience. They are not wrong - the Myers and Briggs test has not been supported empirically.
Since I began studying MBTI I've had to deal with the valid counterargument that "but it's not real science". Most of us write this off because.... if MB isn't generalizable then what the hell is?It's intuitive and makes sense of just about everything... If it's wrong I don't want to be right. So whatever I'll just ignore the elephant in the room and cite the both large and active community both on and offline as a testament to its "generalizability".
I understand that. We've all done that. But now that I put theories under a microscope I can't help but face this fact. Pretty much everything you read of Myers Briggs is bullshit.... Unless it's the functions. Introversion and extroversion have nothing to do with personality except how they influence ones FUNCTIONS.
But this is not another tirade on how important the functions are - this is a call to arms from this community for those who care about MBTI. For those who would like to see it scientifically backed.
Maybe it doesn't affect you now, but the lack there of will and does influence your involvement in it - more so for me than others...
The opportunity to be taken seriously in a future career as a work psychologist would most likely go POOF for me. POOF to consulting, hello to administrative HR payroll. I wish I was joking! Search industrial organizational Psychology on Twitter or LinkedIn and you'll find about 100 psychologists who HATE MBTI talking shit on it right this second. I read 3 articles this week on MBTI as a discredit to the practice and profession of psychology. It's a big fucking deal people.
Why?? It needs to gain scientific support to be used because it is backfiring to be a black mark on psychology as a discipline.
Think about it... What happens when unscientific theories become popular to the public? Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson logic our asses into reality!
But...but... Why don't we have a psychologist version of them? Well for starters they're not taken SERIOUSLY! It's not "science" - Myers Briggs is a testament to that.
Case in point - I want to change that.
I intend to privately construct a new test by the time I graduate or soon after within a 2 year timeframe. Operative word being privately cause if it fails I'm not planning on going down with it.
That said, this is relevant for every single person in this community who would like Myers and Briggs AND psychology to be a respected part of the scientific community. For everyone who's ever been questioned about the accuracy of it or who want to use it without being scoffed at.
You can help. When I get to making the test, I will need all of the help I can get in validating it which means I need as many PARTICIPANTS as I can get!
There will probably be times I will get on here and ask for participants for my studies. But in the next few years one of those times will be asking this community to put aside the shit posts and song typing to contribute something meaningful to the field of psychology and theory of Myers and Briggs. I do not care if you agree or disagree. I do not care if you don't like me for insinuating I will break ties if it does not work out... I am not here to argue. This is my call to arms. Hope to see you all there.