Spring sunset, J-Six Ranch, Cochise County, Arizona.

Love Begins
Not today Justin

titsay

⁂

Kaledo Art
KIROKAZE
Game of Thrones Daily
d e v o n
RMH
No title available
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Misplaced Lens Cap

if i look back, i am lost

izzy's playlists!

ellievsbear
Mike Driver
wallacepolsom
No title available
DEAR READER
taylor price
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Japan
seen from Morocco

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Czechia

seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
@pambwitch
Spring sunset, J-Six Ranch, Cochise County, Arizona.
For sale: ship of theseus
Condition: used, like new
This was my art school’s water fountain. Drink from them wolf tiddies
Assignment misunderstood. I have now built a city.
Give it a day
"There's millions of Tumblr users" to you. To me There's only about 12 and we all reblog the same five posts from each other
btw it's so fucking stupid you can be anxious physically in your body even after you've decided mentally you don't care. I'm supposed to be in charge here
id be unstoppable if it wasn't for the evil brain disorder
auto immune disorders happen when the immune system ignores regulatory factors and begins attacking healthy bodily tissues, due to what scientists refer to as "sheer love of the game"
I should be doing more to appreciate the lack of marvel movies in today's popular culture. I once yearned for marvel movies to have this level of irrelevance. They used to feel almost ozymandian, like an empire that had no beginning and no end. and now tony stark iron man is naught but two vast and trunkless legs of stone.
It's end of May, yall know what that means
The last of the classically trained tumblrinas
Strange racists and homophobes on the internet seem to have access to an alternate way cooler version of TV than me. "every white character on TV is in an interracial relationship" "every show has a gay couple in it" "main characters keep having to secretly be bisexual and nonbinary" "every show has gratuitous full frontal nudity" like damn promise?? What channel???
Reblog to cast healing for your homies.
The party establishment rushed to condemn the Twitch streamer after news of his alliance with a Michigan Senate candidate
It’s worth reflecting on the power of the respective sides of this controversy. Cory Booker, for example, is a United States senator. Hasan Piker is a guy with a laptop and an audience. Booker supports a bill that would unconstitutionally ban boycotts of Israel and has repeatedly voted to arm a country that has killed tens of thousands and leveled the Gaza Strip. But a streamer who says strident things about it from his living room is somehow beyond the pale? The double standard tells you everything about what the establishment considers dangerous – not the exercise of actual state power, but the existence of a popular voice they can’t control. On Pod Save America, Booker said he’d never even heard of Piker before this past week. This is revealing in a way Booker probably didn’t intend. A senator who aspires to lead the party can’t be bothered to know who commands the attention of millions of the young voters he claims to want back, but he can be mobilized overnight to condemn the guy. His priority clearly isn’t engaging with the audience, though he does find time to “text message back and forth like teenagers” with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s president. After 2024, Democrats conducted an anguished post-mortem about why young men were abandoning the party. Pundits filled columns wondering where the party’s Joe Rogan was – someone with cultural reach who could talk to disaffected men on their own terms. As Ryan Zickgraf pointed out, they got one. And the party’s first instinct was to try to cancel him. What this episode makes painfully clear is that for too many leading Democrats, the priority is defeating progressives within their own ranks and triangulating their way back to power behind a well-heeled professional base.
8 April 2026
science has always been political. what gets studied. what doesnt. who gets to do the studying. on and on and on.
scientists on this post: yuuuup 👍
people who aren't scientists: um actually ☝️
I left research science for a multitude of personal reasons but a big one was that my autistic arse just could not keep up with the politics. Trying to increase your profile and your work's appeal for grant money (both critically important factors for succeeding in science) by carefully tailoring your work focus, grant proposals and papers to attract the interest of various grant committees focused on what research is in fashion and also to try to maximise the number of references to your papers in other people's papers takes so much time and just isn't interesting.
People in the notes are all like "yes sometimes The Government or The Lobbyists remove funding from sciences that might reveal things that they do not want known" and yes yes covid and climate change and vaccine denialism and racism and all that, but it's not just the obvious stuff. When I was working in labs, metagenomics was the next big thing, so EVERYTHING was metagenomics. If you worked in environmental or medical microbio, there was an 80% chance that you were taking some mud or poop or something and doing metagenomics on it whether or not it was the best way to analyse what you wanted to analyse, and bam, that was a paper, possibly two, it kept the lights on. And if 100 labs run 100 experiments where they do metagenomics for random things to do with the human body, then at a 95% confidence interval, 5 of them will find a completely nonexistent correlation for any random thing you can think of if they happen to check their data for it, and they need to keep the lights on and the PhD student who's running the experiment needs a paper so even though that wasn't what they were looking for, bam -- everyone's seeing that men and women have different microbiomes in their large intestine! People with autism nave different microbiomes, people with MS have different microbiomes, kids who are vaccinated have different microbiomes so watch out! And there's not enough papers to do a review paper for six or seven years, and when that review paper is done only other scientists will read it, because Everyone Knows that vaccines alter your microbiome so stay away from them, and Everyone Knows that men and women are so so different because why else would their large intestines be so different? Look at this paper!
And the psych guys are doing MRIs because that's the Next Big Thing, and any bias culturally relevant enough will get positive papers for it because the 100 labs will check their 100 papers and the 95 that show no difference at 95% confidence are of course never published because there's nothing to say. And the medicine guys are running ten thousand seaweed extract experiments to kill cancer cells, and their confidence intervals do tend to be better, but there is no defense against an industry where the only way to survive is to publish and the only way to get funding is to look into something that the grant committee wants you to find something interesting about, and you'd better find that something interesting even if you kind of have to publish your study before repeating it to check for that confidence interval -- someone else will repeat it, or you will once the paper's out, but you've got to get the paper out. And that paper had better be useful for other scientists to reference, even if you have to change the tone and the implications and choose which results are worth referencing, because getting more references is how you keep your job and how you convince the next grant committee.
Big Bad Government Lies About Covid is a problem, but it's not the problem. A perfect government with a massive science budget does not solve the problem. The system of research is inherently political because it is inherently competitive and because it deals with numbers and statistics that are not intuitive to humans.
#fuck capitalism
Nono this problem also exists outside of capitalism. Any economic system has to distribute resources and any actually useful one has to care if its workers are actually producing something.
Publish or perish is a huge problem. It is rewarding "work", but not the useful work that we want to see. All attempts to make those 95 papers see the light of day have been... less than successful. And the rewards for replicating a paper (or at least as useful, showing that you can't) aren't as large as for producing a piece of slop that shows that there's a correlation between green jelly beans an acne.
In my field (cognitive behavioural psychology, and i guess psychology more generally too) this is known as the "file drawer problem", i.e. the vast majority of non-significant findings are left in some researcher's file drawer never to see the light of day because it's not as publishable as the ones that are significant. It's a key factor in what we call the Replication Crisis, where researchers completely failed to replicate several foundational studies on which like half the field was based. Once the first couple effects couldn't be replicated (social priming, ego depletion, power posing, the marshmallow test, etc.), it caused a massive domino effect that revealed widespread replicability issues across the entire field of psychology. Half the famous pop-psychology stuff that gets passed around is based on studies that can't be replicated (and trust me, people have tried really hard to replicate them, it really is egg on our faces for all the most famous bits of our field turning out to be fake). Effects we all thought were really solid turned out to have been statistical anomalies concealed by the file-drawer problem. Stuff that was published in places like Nature and Science. Prominent researchers were exposed for faking huge amounts of their data. Meta-analysis showed suspicious gaps in the distributions of published p-values, indicating people were lying about marginally-significant results (i.e. if the data gave a p-value between 0.05 and 0.06, people were "rounding down" to 0.05 so it technically met the significance threshold). Evidence emerged of researchers collecting massive amounts of data and arbitrarily including or excluding participants until their data showed significant results, or simply collecting more and more data until they had significant results (p-hacking). Papers got retracted, funding was pulled, people got fired. It was a total fucking mess that almost collapsed the entire field, and it happened because of a couple of factors:
a) you can't "prove" anything from non-significant results (i.e failing to find evidence of a link between purple jelly beans and acne is not the same thing as finding evidence *against* a link between purple jelly beans and acne) and so you can't really reach any definitive and interesting conclusions. If you find significant evidence of something you can make all kinds of interesting claims and discuss how it fits or conflicts with existing literature, and propose ideas to explore how and why it works like that, etc. If your findings are nonsignificant, the best you can do is be like "idk man, it's weird it didn't work though, right? Maybe our methods were flawed, or maybe our participants are weird, or maybe there just is no effect here - I sure as fuck couldn't say!" and keep it pushing (while hoping people continue to pay you to do this).
b) Academic journals gain their prestige/value from how often their articles are cited (with for-profit, pay walled journals this is also their main source of revenue bc people/institutions will pay them for access to the articles others have cited, etc.), and so they are motivated to publish things people will want to cite lots. People typically cite articles in order to reference a specific finding or theory it shows evidence for. Therefore, papers with non-significant findings are unlikely to be cited nearly as often as those with significant findings (on account of how they generally don't prove anything) and are thus less valuable for the journal to publish. This maintains the journal's reputation for being difficult to get published in and also for publishing only the most high-quality, "impactful" work (bc everyone is citing it, so it must be important!), ergo the prestige thing. Open-access journals and those dedicated to tackling the file drawer problem are available but are far less prestigious, owing to the lack of citations they get.
c) Academics are judged in hiring and grant application processes by how many papers they have published, how well-cited their work is (ditto above), *and* how prestigious the journals they've published in are. This is the "publish or perish" problem yarning mentioned. In my field applicants for academic positions etc. are often ranked by a combination of Journal Impact Factor (average number of citations received within a two-year window by articles published by the "best" journal you have also published in) and h-index (highest number, h, for which your top h most-cited papers have at least h citations. E.g. if you have 20 papers, and the top 7 are all cited at least 7 times but the next most-cited is only cited twice, you would have a h-index of 7). As you can maybe see, this makes resisting the file-drawer problem (and, to an extent, the other far more unethical methods I mentioned above) quite difficult on the part of individual academics, who need to prioritise publishing work that will get cited if they want to compete for jobs and grants. As an early-career researcher with relatively few published papers, pushing to get your non-significant results published is practically career suicide in a lot of fields especially if you're not working on something that gets a lot of funding opportunities to begin with. It can sometimes look worse to hiring/grant committees to have 6 papers with no citations than to have no papers at all bc the default assumption is often that this means your work is low-quality in some way (this perception has started to change, thankfully). It can be a bit easier for more established researchers for whom publishing low-impact papers doesn't really matter so much and who are probably not having to scrabble for funding etc. as much anyway, but they are also less motivated to push for publication in general.
There isn't a super easy solution to the problem tbh, and it is only compounded by the pressure Derin mentioned to twist whatever you actually want to study to include whatever the hot new analysis/theory/whatever is favoured by your friendly neighbourhood funding-bodies. If people are paying you to look into The Thing, then you do kind of have to try to get it published if you find it, even if it is a bullshit half-baked addition tacked onto the end of the bit you're actually interested in. And conversely, the people invested enough in The Thing to pay you to study it probably don't particularly care if you publish papers that don't find evidence for it, in fact they would probably rather you didn't. Citations are also an abysmally poor metric of the value of a given piece of work to the field, but we don't really have a better one. It *is* becoming more understood how flawed the system is though, and work on large-scale multi-lab replication studies and meta-analyses is gradually being valued more, which is good to see. More journals are also opting for a pre-publication system, where you submit your introduction, rationale, and planned methodology for approval *before* you collect data and get your results. If your pre-pub is accepted, the journal agrees to publish the work regardless of whether the results themselves are significant, which avoids the file drawer problem while also allowing the journal to maintain certain standards of quality based on the methodology and theoretical foundations. Open access, and especially the proliferation of predatory pay-to-publish journals, has gotten a reputation of letting literally anyone publish whatever they like with very poor peer review processes, which contributes to the lack of prestige associated with publishing outside the more traditional journals. The pre-pub system helps to combat that reputation, which makes it more of an option for early-career researchers. Pre-pubs are also often made public in some capacity, which helps to prevent things like p-hacking and retroactively changing hypotheses to fit findings - a solid improvement in transparency imo. Doesn't solve the problem of people potentially straight-up faking their data, but it reduces the incentive to do that stuff if you know you'll get a publication regardless. Funding bodies are springing up whose whole thing is giving grants for replication work across various fields, with expectations that researchers will publish whatever they find, significant or not. There's not a lot of them so far, but at least there are some ways to fund research that aren't so biased towards reinforcing the file drawer problem for whatever the grant committee's pet theory is. It's still a mess, but recent shifts have given me some hope tbh.
Side note bc i can't help myself: The whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing is a deliberate feature of how hypothesis testing works, not a bug. You predict what will happen *if the theory you are testing is true* (e.g., if our hypothesis, H¹, is that purple jelly beans are associated with acne, we would predict that participants who eat purple jelly beans would develop more acne than those who don't), and then you run statistical tests to see whether this hypothesis explains the data you actually collect better than assuming there is no effect (which we call a null hypothesis or H⁰) within some pre-determined confidence interval, which is usually 95% or 99% for my field but the standard for statistical significance varies a lot. All your basic, garden-variety statistical hypothesis tests (t-tests, ANOVAs, correlations, regressions, etc.) have a built-in assumption that there is no effect and then test for evidence to contradict that assumption. Because of this, it's impossible to tell a false negative, or the presence of a conflicting effect in the opposite direction, from the actual absence of an effect based on one of these tests. The idea is that we would rather accept a false-negative and dismiss an effect that does exist (which others will surely find evidence of on replication if it is actually reliable) than risk a false positive where we believe in an effect that doesn't exist. In some cases, we use another H⁰, depending on the specific setup of the experiment, whether it's reasonable to assume *no* baseline effect vs. an established level of effect, etc. but it always reflects some baseline assumption that we are comparing H¹ to. Each time you run these tests you can only check for evidence of one H¹ at a time, so failing to find that evidence doesn't mean H⁰ is true necessarily (it could be any number of other alternate explanations), it just means we haven't found enough evidence to suggest H¹ is sufficiently more likely than H⁰, so we can't be confident H¹ is true. If you are testing multiple different hypotheses, and therefore running the same test multiple times, you are *supposed* to add a statistical correction for multiple-comparisons to avoid the inflating family-wise error rate (there are a couple different methods depending on how conservative you want to be with your confidence intervals etc. I won't get into all of that here unless anyone actually wants to know, lol.) This doesn't always happen, especially if multiple different papers are analysing the same dataset since technically, each person is only doing the test once, even though overall you do get the same issue of family-wise error rates. Meta-analyses, where you look at the papers that have already been published on a given topic and analyse what the cumulative evidence says, typically do correct for multiple comparisons in some way, though in my experience.
There's a bunch of adhd advice out there that's like "people with adhd tend to work better under deadlines due to the anxiety so here are ways to artificially induce a stress response in order to get you to get work done" and it's like well what if I don't want to be stressed out all the time in order to function
this gold shouldn't stay in the comments
hey loves, I’ve been reading through the comments and loads of people are asking how to not fall into this pattern because that’s all they know. so, here’s some advice from Auntie Pan who’s been in the trenches (stress-caused disabilities and chronic illnesses).
context: grew up in an abusive, controlling home, escaped to uni, had a prolonged mental breakdown, became a teacher and worked in a dysfunctional school with amazing kids and nightmare management for years. I did not realise I have adhd and autism for a long time. (You might even be able to scroll back through this blog to find the time around which I did realise lol.)
ANYWAY, things that have helped me because my body can no longer handle any kind of stress without flaring up:
If you’re doing anything that requires you to do a lot of prep before you begin the actual thing (e.g. cooking, deep cleaning a room, moving house), mise en place. That’s a fancy french way of saying get everything ready before you begin. So if I’m cooking idk spaghetti carbonara, that means fry and chop the bacon, separate the egg yolks from the whites, put water in the kettle, put dry spaghetti into a pan. Once everything’s ready, it reduces the mental load and means I can focus on the actual cooking and any clean up that I can do along the way. H/t to @ms-demeanor for this, you changed my life!
the Might As Well rule. This one works really well for me but you gotta be careful otherwise you’ll get sucked into the Vortex. Basically, let’s imagine you’re in the bathroom, brushing your teeth. You notice that the extra roll of toilet paper has been used. instead of thinking, “I’ll get to that later”, and then forgetting about it until you sit down on the bog (no judgement, we’ve all been there), you think “Might As Well put an extra roll while I’m here!” This tends to help with the little tasks that build up over time. This Does Not Work for big tasks.
Leading on from no.2, Do It Immediately/ASAP really helps me too. My current boss will email me on a Friday and say, ‘don’t reply to this now! Leave it til monday!’ But she and i both know that if i leave it til monday, I will forget and get stressed and this will make me Very Ill. So, instead, the moment i receive the email, I’ll either schedule in replying to it as soon as I’m done with my current thing, OR I’ll reply to it immediately.
Anything that can’t be actioned immediately, i mark as Unread. Anything Unread in my inbox is a future action, and i check those Unread emails/texts/whatevers Every. Day. To make sure whether today is the day i have the info to action it. (This also means i have to stay on top of my inbox. I read all my emails and then mark them accordingly. I’m also brutal with unsubscribing)
The House Always Wins. Both in a literal sense, because i am in a constant battle with keeping my house clean, and i know now that I’ll never get it as clean as i want it. It’s impossible, i no longer have the energy or stamina to vacuum and scrub everything. But also just in a life sense. I’m never going to achieve things to perfection, and perfect is the opposite of done. And getting things done is that much more important when you have limited energy and strength. Accept that you often have to half-arse life in order to Full-Arse the few things that really matter to you.
Have multiples of everything, everywhere. I wear support gloves, so i need to have handcream at every sink and everywhere i sit down in the house. I try to keep it unobtrusive, but it means i don’t have to trek upstairs just to moisturise my hands. Gum, phone chargers, pens and pencils, water bottles, hand sanitizer, whatever you need.
Work with people, even if it’s online. Body doubling actually works. Also I’ve found that if I’m working on assignments, taking myself to a library or study area that isn’t my bedroom helps so much.
Show off! Tell people on here or elsewhere in your life about the fact that you’ve just written 100 words! Or that you’ve cleaned the fridge and that’s a really big deal for you. Celebrate your wins, no matter how small.
Basically, you’re aiming to reduce the mental load as much as possible. Wear the same types of clothes all the time to minimise the amount of laundry. Eat the same three lunches so decision fatigue doesn’t take over.
All of this takes time to implement and it is cumulative, but i hope it helps. Reading the comments on this post, i finally understand why adhd is comorbid with so many other conditions. let’s take care of each other <3
I'm so glad to hear that helped you!
For anybody looking for resources from someone dealing with actual ADHD, I have an incomplete but ever growing list of ADHD tips, tools, and suggestions on my website.
A lot of the pages on that site are adapted from my tumblr posts, for instance I'm adapting this post about car repair projects with ADHD into a guide on project management and completion with ADHD.
(Red links are stuff that I've got planned but haven't published for reasons that are probably clear to anyone looking for ADHD advice online)