More than half of adults with ADHD also experience anxiety. But, Sibley’s study shows this might not always be a bad thing. skip past newsletter promotion

this article feels.... really gross. like wow, ADHD people thrive under stress! i wonder how they ended up like that

it also doesn't seem to have any regard for the wellbeing of the people in the study, just their productivity, although it could just be being presented poorly by the article

just shitty overall

if it's not worth preserving

IT'S NOT WORTH PURCHASING

there's been a recent meme of responding to people making any remarks related to the ps5/ps5 pro by saying "notice how they're X instead of playing games on the ps5", with the implication that the ps5 has no games

e.g. notice how they're arguing online about the ps5 instead of playing games on the ps5

it's not a very serious bit (since obv people can do more than one thing) but it's also funny because it's purposely being obtuse about the situation

these people are real heroes

idk dawg this seems pretty sound according to the article

The FDA and its advisors identified flaws in the design of the clinical trials, missing data, and a variety of biases in people involved with the trials, including an alleged cult-like support of psychedelics. Lykos is a commercial spinoff of the psychedelic advocacy nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS).

FDA advisors also noted the public allegations of a sexual assault of a trial participant during a Phase II trial by an unlicensed therapist providing the MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.

...

On Saturday, using the existing data and scientific literature to support MDMA therapy got a little more difficult for Lykos. The journal Psychopharmacology posted retraction notices for three studies that involved Phase II clinical data of the therapy. The studies included a 2019 rationale for a Phase III trial design, a 2020 pooled analysis, and a 2020 study on how antidepressant use may affect the response to MDMA therapy.

The retraction notice cited two reasons for the retractions, including "protocol violations amounting to unethical conduct" at one of the clinical trial sites—a reference to the sexual assault allegations—and undisclosed conflicts of interest by the authors.

like. these are pretty good reasons for not going ahead. it's on lykos and the scientists running the trials for not keeping their paperwork straight and, you know, not warning people about the risks of the study

from an article cited within (https://qz.com/1809184/psychedelic-therapy-has-a-sexual-abuse-problem-3):

A few years ago, a therapist working in a MAPS MDMA study publicly spoke about his challenges dealing with a patient’s sexuality. Early in his career, Richard Yensen was working with a “lovely young lady who became very sexualized in her relationship around the [MDMA] sessions,” he told an audience at California Institute of Integral Studies in 2016. “It got so intense,” said Yensen, that the chair of his department saw him mid-therapy session and told him to leave the room, warning him to always have another therapist alongside him during sessions. “And thank god, because she became more and more and more activated sexually,” said Yensen. “I don’t think I could have handled it.”

Not long after, Yensen was accused of sexually assaulting a PTSD patient, Meaghan Buisson, during a MAPS clinical trial on MDMA

like. even GENEROUSLY assuming that nothing truly unethical happened. this is a huge issue that will only get worse if it's made publicly available

i'm not taking a position on whether or not it should be made available as a treatment. i don't know and i'm not qualified to determine that. but given what's been said, it feels reasonable to want more data and perhaps go "hey think you could run a trial without getting accused of assaulting people?"

i would have appreciated hearing how the author, personally, found capitalized pronouns to be affirming, because, absent that reasoning, it really does seem like it's to set up a deferential power dynamic. i don't really mind respecting the pronouns anyways, but it does mean i don't really want to be friends with Them until i understand what's going on there better

it's highly personal, so ideally you ask the individual and include their consent in your article. that said, generally speaking, trans people will use their current pronouns, even referring to their pre-transition selves. this is also what's generally considered polite if you don't know them, so it's pretty suspect that the article is not doing that

still, something about malice and incompetence....

it's crazy how those comments are aging like milk precisely because google/web search is going to shit (in addition to being dickhead comments ofc)

just weird to look back and think about how we thought it would never change

i appreciate this link but i still don't understand what this meme in particular is referencing :')

game developers need to unionize yesterday

yeah having read the thread, i'm inclined to agree you come across as someone trying to pick a fight, when you have a semantic disagreement with them at most

i understand that you found what they wrote triggering and harmful, but i don't think you were very kind with your posts. i feel like, in your haste to protect trans people, you were not considerate of the human being you were actually speaking to

i know you're not a member of beehaw, but you're posting it to our instance, so that's the standard i'm applying

if you had empathized with them (her?) that they sometimes need a space where they can just be a person, instead of being trans (or a woman or however abigail identifies), they (she?) might have been more receptive to your point

it also would have helped if you had been direct to the point - for example: "hey, would you mind saying "i don't like debates around my fundamental rights to exist" (or whatever alternative) as opposed to saying "i don't like politics"? this way you still allow space for discussion of important matters related to human rights, while clearly communicating what it is you dislike" (this is my best understanding of your point, but hopefully you can see how to tailor it to better represent what you truly want to express)

as it is, you spent like five posts nitpicking semantics when you knew what was intended and could have just directly stated what you disagreed with

and if you didn't know, well... i guess this is a reminder that words don't mean the same thing to everyone, and your definitions aren't necessarily more valid than someone else's

ultimately, you were argumentative with someone who was absolutely not advocating for transphobia, and policing someone's language without even making the barest effort to engage with what they were actually saying. in both the original poster's position, and in the admin's position, i completely get why they reacted how they did

i don't personally agree with your point, but i hope these recommendations help you more clearly communicate it, and foster healthier interactions about it, in the future

i think this is somewhat presumptive. that 95% figure comes from a world where the representation wasn't very good. a lot of people didn't know that being gay was a thing, and a lot of people still don't know that being gay is a thing they can be

we can't really know what those numbers would be in a truly accepting world, which is exactly why representation matters. even if it's "disproportionate"