anonymous asked:

you're literally no different from a sjw. "a transwoman has a female brain uwu" so her brains has a pussy and tits? lol fucking retard. brains dont have a sex, genitals do. dick = male, vagina = female. sorry not sorry.

If abiding by science and psychology makes me an sjw, I suppose I am one then.

Like I said, Google (use Google Scholar) “sexual dimorphism”, “gender dysphoria”, and “transsexual brains”.

For uneducated people like you, however, I would suggest this easy to digest article:

Transexual people are valid.

How to Utilize Google Scholar Efficiently

Contrary to popular belief, you can use google (i.e. google scholar) as a legitimate source for finding information for research papers and school projects.  There are various parts of this website that I will review below that can be useful when doing research for scholarly sources. 

Link to Google Scholar:

1.) Look for [PDF] on the right: This will indicate that there is a PDF version attached to the source that you can use!

2.) No [PDF]: If there is no PDF available, you could still possibly use the source.  If your college is like mine, the library has a website (or page on your school website) that allows you to search journals and articles.  Use google scholar to identify certain articles you want and copy and paste the title of the article/journal into the search bar on your library’s page in quotes (ex: “Title of article”) to check and see if you can get it for free through you library.  I would include more instructions on how I do this, but each school is different.  If you have no clue what I’m talking about then collect the name of the journal (if it is in a journal), the name of the article, the author, and all other information regarding the article you can find and bring this information to the library’s help desk.  Again, if your school is like mine, there will be a librarian there that can help you!

3.) Cite:  Once you find an article you think you could use.  Utilize the “Cite” button under the description of the link (screenshot included below).  Once you click the “Cite” button (see screenshot #2 below) you can copy and paste MLA, APA, or Chicago style depending on the requirements of your paper.  Now, I have encountered times where the citation is not done right.  Don’t solely rely on this button for citing sources in your final paper, ensure that it is correct and make changes that you need to! 

4.) Related Articles: By clicking “Related Articles” below the link description, you can find articles that Google has identified as similar to the link you have chosen.  Be aware that clicking this will bring you to a new search result page, mine opens in a new window but this may just be a setting that I have adjusted in the past. 

5.) Cited by…: By clicking “Cited By” below the link description, you can find articles/journals/sources/papers that have cited that source.  This may help you find articles that give you more information on the topic which can be helpful if you are needing more sources. 

6.) Date Range: Once you have reached the page where search results are displayed, on the left you will see a section that says in red “Anytime” and then starts to list years.  By working with this section you can modify your search results based on the year that they were written or published.  I know that my program requires us to use sources that were written in the last 10 years.  Using this allows you eliminate results that you wouldn’t consider using because they are old and/or no longer relevant.

7.) Save & My Library: Again, on the left you will see a button that says “my library”.  You will need a google account to use this (gmail account).  What you do is click “save” under the description of the link that you want to save for future use and it will be added to your library.  To be honest, I just discovered this feature today when writing this so I don’t actually know too much about this feature but it is totally something that I will be using in the future. 


If you have any questions, feel free to write me an “ask” at

           - TheOrganizedCoyote

Since coming to university, most of my studying is done on the computer. I barely ever take hand written notes any more - which isn’t necessarily a good thing. But I do have a lot of tips on how to study from a computer effectively. A lot of these tips I have picked up from other master posts, but most of the advice is original and comes from my own experience. I haven’t included information on how to write an essay on a computer, this is purely about taking notes and studying. The main problems I’ve found with studying from a computer is that it’s easy to get disorganised, and there are lots of available distractions. The tips below will help you eliminate those problems:

  • Keep everything organised. Just as you might organise your hand written notes, make sure that you organise your files. How you name your files is up to you, but honestly, the more information on the file name the better. That way when you’re revisiting your notes, you don’t have to read through the whole thing to know what you’re looking at. Name them appropriately, so you always know where everything is. I use separate folders for each module. Always put the dates on the name of the file, and a couple of key words. This way you’ll know exactly what the file contains without opening it. 
  • Download extensions to make your life easier. I use Momentum and Website Blocker. Momentum is great because it has a ‘to do’ list, a clock, and a new pretty background each day. Website blockers are great because I get distracted so easily. That’s the biggest problem with studying on the computer - the availability of distractions. But by using a website blocker, you eliminate that problem. There are lots of alternatives, see Lanes for an alternative to Momentum which has an inbuilt Pomodoro timer. For a different website blocker, just Google it, there are tonnes of options. 
  • Back everything up. For God’s sake, please. Don’t lose all your notes because you dropped your laptop, or spilled Lucozade on your keyboard (both have happened to me!) Use a pen drive, or a file saving website. I use Dropbox which is perfect for my needs. And do it regularly!
  • When taking notes from an online source, don’t just copy and paste. Sometimes I do, when I’m feeling tired or there’s a lot to type. But, when you copy and paste, it doesn’t go in that well. By typing out the quotation you better comprehend it, as you have to process it. It can be tempting to just copy and paste, but honestly, it’s so much better if you don’t.
  • Take advantage of sites like Google Books and Google Scholar. This is especially pertinent to university students. Lots of textbooks are on Google Books, and while you might only be able to see a few pages, it can still be helpful. Google Scholar links you to articles, which will help with wider reading, and a more thorough understanding of your topic.
  • Download Microsoft, or a free alternative. You’re going to need it if you take your notes on your computer. Trust me. You could try Endnote, which lots of studyblrs recommend. But I found it to be a little bit confusing. 
  • Make your notes pretty! No one likes to look at a huge chunk of black text. Microsoft word has loads of ways for you to illustrate your notes: colours, fonts, even clip art. You can search for images and paste them into your notes too. This way when you come back to your notes, they’re easier to read!
  • Don’t just use your computer. In my first two years of university, I only used my computer, and I really regret it now. When you write out notes, you can condense, paraphrase, and better analyse, and thus better remember it. I still rely on my laptop a lot more than hand written notes, but when planning essays, I now write things out. Mind maps, flow diagrams, and timelines are a lot easier to do by hand. 

Computers are a great resource for students. Hopefully I’ve outlined some ways to make your life easier, and to use them more effectively! Go forth and study! :)

The 15 most useful Google apps you never knew existed

Google can be your best friend when it comes to searching for answers or information online. Millions of people use it every day, but only few can utilize Google to its full potential. In fact, this powerful search engine can offer lots of great services, apps and features that aren’t on many people’s radar.

Here are 15 of the most useful Google apps that you probably didn’t know existed.

Keep reading

Sick of jumping between your university’s library and Google Scholar when searching for resources? Good news! You can link those two together with Google Scholar.

Step 1. Go to google scholar.

Step 2. Click on “Settings”.

Step 3. Click on “Library links”.

Step 4. Enter your college/university and press enter.

Step 5. Click the check-box before clicking “Save”

Step 6. Search for an article.

Step 7. Click on the link on the right of the article title (Fulltext@QUT for me), this will take you to your login page for your college/university. Once you login, you will have access to the article.

And there you go :) If you have any further questions don’t hesitate to ask me, I am always up for a chat.

If you like the way I explain things, check out this link. Maybe I’ve done something else that will help you?

Alexis Madrigal: 20 Services Google Thinks Are More Important Than Google Scholar

I know I’m not representative of the average person. I’m a guy who trolls through PubMed Central for fun and buys 1950s technology ephemera. As such, I think Google Scholar is one of the most wonderful things Google (or any technology company) has ever created. I use the cross-publisher academic search tool every single day, even many times a day. 

Apparently, Google’s not as convinced of Scholar’s worth. It doesn’t appear across the main Google navigation bar, which features nine other services: Search, Image Search, Maps, Play, YouTube, News, Gmail, Documents, and Calendar. But OK, it is more niche than any of those applications and it used to reside in the More menu at the top right of the nav bar. No longer. Google has now moved Scholar to the ‘Even More’ section. That ranks its importance in the Googlesphere behind Translate, Mobile, Books, Offers, Wallet, Shopping, Blogger, Reader, Finance, Photos, and Videos. 

Google, of course, has the right to play with its user interface, even to the detriment of my predilections. But I worry that this is a signal that the company is turning away from Google Scholar like it has some other recent projects. After all, it is the sort of revenue-less service that seems endangered under Larry Page. 

So, let me just say this: Don’t do it, Larry! This is an invaluable tool for content creators that will not be easily replicated. If you kill Google Scholar, our web won’t be the same.
Google Scholar Opens Up Its Citations

Anyone can now track his or her citations via Google Scholar. The free citation service is “a simple way for authors to compute their citation metrics and track them over time,” the company said in an announcement yesterday on the Google Scholar blog. Google announced a limited-release test of the service in July.

Google Scholar automatically sorts articles into groups. Authors can go through those, identify which articles are indeed theirs, and edit the list. Google Scholars collects citations for each author and graphs them over time to calculate different metrics: “the widely used h-index; the i-10 index, which is simply the number of articles with at least ten citations; and, of course, the total number of citations to your articles,” the blog post says. “Each metric is computed over all citations and also over citations in articles published in the last five years.”

» via The Chronicle of Higher Education (Subscription may be required for some content)

Academic Search Engines and Databases

The world of academia has many databases not accessible by Google and Yahoo!, so give these databases and search engines a try if you need scholarly information.

  • Google Scholar. Find information among academic journals with this tool.
  • WorldCat. Use this tool to find items in libraries including books, CDs, DVDs, and articles.
  • getCITED. This database of academic journal articles and book chapters also includes a discussion forum.
  • Microsoft Libra. If you are searching for computer science academic research, then Libra will help you find what you need.
  • BASE – Bielefeld Academic Search Engine. This multi-disciplinary search engine focuses on academic research and is available in German, Polish, and Spanish as well as English.
  • yovisto. This search engine is an academic video search tool that provides lectures and more.
  • AJOL – African Journals Online. Search academic research published in AJOL with this search engine.
  • HighWire Press. From Stanford, use this tool to access thousands of peer-reviewed journals and full-text articles.
  • MetaPress. This tool claims to be the “world’s largest scholarly content host” and provides results from journals, books, reference material, and more.
  • OpenJ-Gate. Access over 4500 open journals with this tool that allows you to restrict your search to peer-reviewed journals or professional and industry journals.
  • Directory of Open Access Journals. This journal search tool provides access to over 3700 top “quality controlled” journals.
  • Intute. The resources here are all hand-selected and specifically for education and research purposes.
  • Virtual Learning Resource Center. This tool provides links to thousands of academic research sites to help students at any level find the best information for their Internet research projects.
  • Gateway to 21st Century Skills. This resource for educators is sponsored by the US Department of Education and provides information from a variety of places on the Internet.
  • MagBot. This search engine provides journal and magazine articles on topics relevant to students and their teachers.
  • Michigan eLibrary. Find full-text articles as well as specialized databases available for searching.
Are Your Excuses More Important Than Your Dreams?
scientific publishing

Niko Kriegeskorte from the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge recently discussed the future of scientific publishing (his blog on this). He considered these questions: What’s good and bad about the current system? What features define the future system and how can we transition to it?

Good things about the current system include that it provides a signal of what to read. It does this through peer review and journal prestige. One issue is whether journal prestige is a good indicator of whether something should be read, an issue that’s considered below.

Another good thing with the current system is that it provides an appealing layout for papers. Niko mentioned that this is desirable for, but not critical to, scientific progress. I think of this more broadly than just layout, in that publishers implement frameworks for dissemination of the content. They put it in the right place, provide it in different formats, keep track of downloads, etc. They also enforce a threshold on these qualities. I would agree that this is desirable, but not essential. In some sense, things like bad layout are self-correcting. In the absence of enforced layout, people would likely gravitate towards those papers/labs/people with good layout.

Something bad about the current system is that most journals are not open access. He makes the point that scientific papers benefit society only the extent that they are accessible. If the public pays for scientific research, it should demand that the results are openly accessible. To me, this is a weird straw man and almost certainly not true. It seems to assume that all research that would be published is publicly supported or at least that publications from all research should open since that’s in the interests of the public even though they only pay for a subset of the research.

But what are the public paying for and why are they paying for it? Is the answer to that even singular? They may pay for things that benefit themselves or their society in the future, these being assumed in the they pay for it so they should have access to it line. But wanting to benefit doesn’t mean they need access to the papers. In fact, most of those in the public who are paying for it may not care at all about accessing the papers. Some may care even less in the face of evidence that giving them access meant a worse system overall. In addition, other forms of communication might be better suited with respect to benefiting them. One could say that the public may benefit by having the scribbling and marker board content of labs that they are supporting. Should there likewise be a system of providing them with such content?

The technologies or knowledge that the research generates, however remotely connected, may be what actually matters to them. They wouldn’t necessarily benefit by having access to all of the literature that contributes to the design of an A5 chip. They benefit from a faster and useful iPhone.

Continuing with bad things about the current publishing system, the main evaluative signal provided to readers is a journal’s prestige, their reputation. The point here is that although the journal is correlated to the quality of the papers, the signal it provides is one dimensional, and therefore greatly impoverished. The content of the reviews and the ratings that reviewers provide to the journal are kept secret.

My view here is that it is unclear that this can only be fixed by doing away with the middle man or by going fully open. What’s to stop someone from creating a place for rating and reviewing papers and charging for it? In fact, don’t social networking reference management tools, among other things, already do that? They are already tracking things like what people are are reading what papers. They could also collect reviews, at least there is nothing stopping them from doing that right now.

Further point on journal prestige as an evaluative signal, it’s compromised by circularity. Prestige is related to impact factors, which in turn depend on citation frequencies. Because something is published in a high profile journal it will be cited more, something that’ll continue to make the journal more prestigious. This is true regardless of whether the papers are actually any good. Impact factors give us a quality index that’s distorted to an unknown degree by this self-fulfilling prophesy of citation frequency. Also, the prestige reflects the journal, not the individual papers. The two are too weakly correlated with paper quality. On a related point, having only two to four reviews provides only a noisy evaluation signal to justify the influence high-impact publications have on the attention of the scientific community, publication policy, science funding and an individual scientist’s career.

Another bad aspect of the current system has to do with the review process, which Niko says lacks transparency. It relies on secret reviews that are visible only to editors and authors. As above, the selection is based on two to four peer reviewers. Niko’s point is that the quality and originality of a paper cannot be reliably assessed by such a small number of reviewers, even in the ideal case where they are neutral experts. Niko points out that reviewers are rarely objective, considering, for example, that they may be invested in the theory supported in the paper or invested in some other theory that’s challenged by the paper. The current publication system also comes with long publication delays. Pre-publication review can carry on for over a year. Niko’s point is that this delay slows the progress of science.

Moving towards the future of scientific publishing Niko points to some things that are in the right direction. These include, an open access paper repository. The PLoS Journals, which are open-access and invite post-publication commentary. Faculty of 1000, a commercial source for alternative paper evaluations., which collects blog responses to peer-reviewed papers. And, Frontiers, which combines open access and democratic post-publication selection for greater visibility.

So what about the system of the future? In Niko’s view, it includes open access and open post-publication peer review. The idea is to immediately publish the paper and then allow open peer review and reception.

Some details about open post-publication review. Anyone can instantly publish a review and anyone can instantly access it. Every review is permanently linked to the paper. Reviews are digitally authenticated at different levels. There are signed reviews in which the author is authenticated and publicly identified, unsigned reviews by authenticated group members (e.g., a member of a professional group such as the Society for Neuroscience), and unauthenticated reviews.

Further points about this kind of review: in order for reviewing to be open, it has to be post-publication; review and reception are an integrated ongoing process, which takes places after publication; reviews do not decide about or delay publication; peer review is not perfect, but it is the best evaluation mechanism we have; the most serious drawbacks of peer review derive from the fact that it is currently a secret process.

A comparison between current and future systems. In current, a review is secret communication to authors and editors. In future, it’s an open letter to the community. In current, a review decides the fate of the paper. In future, it evaluates published work. In current, reviewer’s motivation includes selfless qualities, such as scientific objectivity, and selfish ones, such as scientific politics. In future, reviewer’s motivations include the same selfless qualities, but the selfish ones are replaced by looking smart and objective in public. In current, a weak argument can kill a paper. In future, an argument is as powerful as it is compelling.

In the future system, authors may ask a senior scientist to edit a paper, at which point the senior scientist would choose three reviewers. The editor asks them to openly review the paper. The editor is named on the paper.

Also, a paper evaluation function, quantifies papers based on available meta-information. The simplest metric might be a weighted average of review ratings. These could be weighted by dimension or by reviewer information, such as by expertise factor, time investment, or independence of authors. They can also be optionally normalized by error margin, so that papers with more reviews have higher scores. Individuals or groups can define their own paper evaluation functions to prioritize the literature according to their needs. Papers with very high scores could be showcased in Science or Nature.

How do we make this happen? A public website for open posting of digitally authenticated post-publication reviews. PubMed-scale investment to develop collaborative software and install the system. This could involve public funding and involvement from Google. Papers published in the current system can be reviewed using the new system. Original reviewers can publish the reviews they wrote for a traditional journal. This provides a platform for continual online evaluation of the scientific literature. Tipping point reached when the evaluative signal becomes more reliable than journal prestige. At that point, papers can be published instantly without journals, as authenticated digital documents, like the reviews.

What can we do now? Publish the reviews we write and receive online. This is useful activism, not the solution. View the problem as a grand challenge to cognitive and brain science. How to organize the collective cognition of the scientific community? Imagine how we want it to work, then talk and write about it.

I ♥ writing essays. This is generally a good thing, because I have to write a lot of them. For this, I use a lot of online resources, the URLs of which I had memorized. For easy access, however, I’ve now listed them here, sorted per category.

I’ll probably add to these as I go :3

Academic Resources

Background Music


Study motivation


How to use Google Scholar.