• ivy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the problem with the I Fucking Love Science crowd, your fun facts quickly turn into barrages of narcissistic gibberish whenever someone doesn’t give you validation. There’s no rigor, there’s no questioning, there’s no meta-analysis.

    Just TRUST THE SCIENTISTS, LOOK AT THE STUDIESESS nevermind whether they’re any good. Go post about the Stanford Prison Experiment or something you irritating pseud.

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Oh so your actual stance is “science isn’t real”. LMAO. You’re so pathetic, you actually think there’s a conspiracy by dozens of some very well-known and trusted neuroscience/psychology researchers on the subject, even specialists in the field (some of which have aphantasia themselves) to make up aphantasia?

      “If I don’t like the ocean of sources and independent research, I’ll just disregard it, even if I have no evidence myself for my claim.”

      • ivy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You’re a fucking moron, you know what you just did, you went and googled “aphantasia” and posted everything that came up because I made you mad by telling you to live more healthily and look at plants and sleep better and see if you magically get the ability to imagine an apple back.

        Studies get meta-analysis on them all the time and get questioned en masse, that’s how science works. Is every scientist who does meta analysis on studies now a conspiracy theorist? 🤣😂

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          You are a dumbass, multiple of the studies are meta-analyses and many very clearly state that the group studied are otherwise healthy individuals.

          You have no evidence for your BS claims and that makes you mad.

          • ivy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            Lol you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. Yes, and there are other meta-analyses of aphantasia studies which explore how bad the data is. You can also have a meta-analysis that says “wow, look at all of this data, isn’t it amazing?” you only want to do B. Our whole definition of a healthy individual is flawed. When testosterone levels drop nationwide, that becomes the new normal threshold for people administering testosterone therapy, for instance. Everyone has sleep problems from a sedentary lifestyle nowadays, starting in school, and that’s when they get diagnosed with ADHD.

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              and there are other meta-analyses of aphantasia studies which explore how bad the data is.

              Multiple of the studies (including ones I linked) suggest that there isn’t as much data on the subject as there is on other disorders since mental imagery has only recently started being explored in-depth, but where exactly do you see any that suggest that aphantasia isn’t real or that the lack of data establishes no consensus on the existence of aphantasia? Because a “debunking” would do that, but all of the meta-analyses I’ve come across still accept the existence of aphantasia as a chronic disorder.

              Pretty funny how you make these grandiose claims but never have a source. Your only source is Reddit threads on people saying it’s not real lol.

              • ivy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                it’s fine for the data to be dogshit and ethereal because the science is new

                wow just like string theory. the enshittification of science has been going on since the 90s man

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Much of the data is good. It’s good data with good methodology that is very clearly explained. It is literally just not as high in volume as most other disorders.

                  • ivy@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    It’s about as interesting as studies on what people’s favorite color is. I find the whole shebang embarrassing, glad everyone justified their paycheck, sincerely, people shouldn’t have to do that and should be free to research cool shit

              • ivy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                7 months ago

                prove aphantasia doesn’t exist

                Prove god doesn’t exist you little weasel

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I don’t need to prove that “God doesn’t exist” if there’s no scientific proof that God exists. But there is much scientific proof which draws the conclusion of aphantasia existing.