Difference between revisions of "Talk:1594: Human Subjects"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
:: Not really [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.197|162.158.252.197]] 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 
:: Not really [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.197|162.158.252.197]] 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
Does antisocial behavior really invalidate non-neuro/psychological drug trials? I don't think personality would change the progression and nature of other diseases. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.137|199.27.128.137]] 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:29, 24 October 2015

The responses in panels 1, 3, and 4 show that Megan is trying to downplay the issues despite better knowledge. This is probably done to surprise the reader of the dialogue for better dramatic effect. Sebastian --162.158.91.159 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


In the second panel, Megan makes a good point which Ponytail misses. If the control group had a high incidence of arson, while the experimental group did not (and assuming that proper protocols were followed in assigning subjects to groups), there is a possibility that the drug has the side-effect of suppressing the urge for arson Sysin (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the point? "People where arrested for arson" - "Side effects" - "They where in the control group". That's not really a point for the side-effect of surpressing the urge for arson, is it? 162.158.114.217 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If only people from the control group have been arrested, it is or could be. Sebastian --162.158.91.213 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In this case both the control and the test group must be full of arsonists and the question is why did Ponytail let them lose to commit arson in the first place. May bye a double-blind test?Jkotek (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

did Danish cut her hair? --108.162.216.8 11:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

also, the title text could allude to the fact that sociopaths (or successful ones at least) tend to be really adept at getting other people to write off or engage in their behaviours. that is, the IRB, despite the apparent awfulness of the actions of the subjects, on meeting them thought they were pretty cool and people should lay off. --108.162.216.8 11:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Are those "citation needed" of any use? There is already a link to Wikipedia for sociopathy. Also, the invoked reasons ("Is an arsonist defined as a sociopath?", "Is a masochist the same as a sociopath?", "Is there an agreed upon definition of 'truly sociopathic behaviour', and is this it?") are not sound to me. Sociopathy is defined as "antisocial behavior", so are arson and sadism. 141.101.66.23 11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I elected to simply remove references to sociopathy. I think the comic uses the phrase "awful" people, and I don't think it is necessary to instill the article with controversy by defining the people as sociopaths or any other term. Simply describing their traits and noting that it is unusual and why should be sufficient. 108.162.216.31 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize that this area is for discussing the subject of the comic, but of all the comic strips out there this is the last one I would ever expect to include the "word" snuck. 108.162.216.26 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This area is mainly for discussing the improvement of the article. Unlike Wikipedia, here we also can discuss the subject of the comic. I addressed your comment, because I never had heard the word (no scare quotes) snuck, but immediatly knew it was an alternate past tense of sneak. I added this: Snuck is a dialectal past tense of sneak.[1]. 108.162.221.17 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think the word "snuck" is uncommon or in any way unique to this comic. I don't think there is any valid need to include a line defining a common verb. If people don't know what the word "snuck" is, dictionary websites are aplenty, but let's not turn this site into one of those ones where every word is a link to a definition. Unless it's jargon or technical or a proper noun that needs explanation, I don't think definitions or links are really needed. 108.162.216.31 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Why use a dictionary when Conan can do it for you?  :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmoHSczX8pU 108.162.238.84 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

This comic could be referencing the growing realization that that the subjects of almost all psychology studies are not representative of the world population at large and of the great variety of humans found in the world. The subjects in psychology experiments are usually psychology students or other undergraduate students. Thus the subjects of these experiments are WIERD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic), these subjects are not close to worldwide normal. See this Scientific American article for more information. Thus this biases the results of psychology experiments in systematic ways, just as having a bunch of sociopaths as subjects would also systematically effect the results. --Benjamin (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Might this comic be related to the increased effect of placebo in medical studies? The "awful people" explanation is one of the ones mentioned in the article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34572482 141.101.79.49

Not really 162.158.252.197 04:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Does antisocial behavior really invalidate non-neuro/psychological drug trials? I don't think personality would change the progression and nature of other diseases. --199.27.128.137 09:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)