...
Uhm. I think I just figured out how to write a 600-page dissertation. This is. Um. They’re not supposed to be that long. That means I have to break my topic up into one of two things, and they both involve a lot of statistics. Though at least one of them wouldn’t follow the question, “Is there a statistical correlation between...” It would just be creating a thing using statistics to verify every fucking step.
Either way I have to come up with a way to (safely) gather abusive persons. One of the directions can make use of those who have been convicted; one of them specifically cannot. This might actually come down to whether I can ethically gather an appropriately-sized sample pool or not.
I mean there’s always bootstrapping, since I now know what that is (hahahahahahelp), but that’s not... like... real... that’s pretending you had more of a sample pool with a computer. I want a real pool! -Whine- -- Ooh, and a swimming pool...
Okay, okay, okay...
I think I would be content doing either topic for my dissertation. I would love more than anything to do the WHOLE idea (which goes beyond what I’m thinking right now and takes a nosedive straight into neuroscience), but I think I know in which direction I’m going to be pushed.
Well no, maybe I don’t???
Because, like, one of the topics, although I believe it would indeed venture into some original research, is just kind of a thing that stops after I’ve either found a correlation or haven’t. The other one is more of me creating something that does a thing which could be used by other people (but this is the part where I’m like “BUT THERE’S MORE TO DO WITH THIS AND I NEED NEUROIMAGING CAPABILITIES!!”). It could stop after the thing is created and (in theory) empirically validated, but it’s like step 2 in my head, and I want to do more with it. Like use it myself to do another massive study which involves treatment, more empirical validation, and a couple years between start and finish.
-SIGH-
I think I’m just going to have to come to terms with my limitations. No, Irene, you can’t do neuroimaging at your school. That is decidedly out.
Now... which is more important to me? Finding a correlation and proving myself - well, not wrong, since you can’t technically prove anything with statistics. But proving myself not wrong? Or creating a tool to use in my field and potentially using it to further research in the future?
Not that the proving-myself-not-wrong can’t be used to further research in the future, but the other is a bit more direct in that. Proving myself not wrong could lead into the need for validating neuroimaging steps, and might toss me in the direction of a neuropsych post-doc (which I’m kinda planning to do anyway), or at least psychopharmacology, but then I’m basically doing experimental stuff, and... I... don’t really have a problem with that? Doing the experimental stuff would... it would be really exciting, actually. But I’d probably have to buckle down and learn chemistry for real. Buuuut I feel like I could do that, now.
The other one, creating a tool, could be put to use more quickly. It would almost just add into research that’s already been done in the field in an area people have kind of given up on. I’d be more likely to stay in the realm of clinical psychology and treating clients, potentially delving into changing some things in the area of court-mandated treatment. I have connections who could help me do things like that. I’d have to learn more law, but that’s already something I’ve been passively doing for a few years.
Wow. I really don’t know. If I follow the paths long enough, they eventually lead to the same place - treating the “untreatable,” but doing it better. One just involves chemistry and boops me into a spot I don’t think I could go with the other one. This is gonna take a lot of... I don’t know.
It’s not like I can’t do both eventually. I just. I feel like I have to choose my direction now, and I keep leaning toward neuroscience. But that’s not what I went to this school for.








