this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
391 points (96.9% liked)
science
14848 readers
739 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't the title misleading? A cell switching on the same gen neurons use to connect, if exposed to substance used to transmit information, doesn't mean it stores or transmits any memories. It seems it doesn't even do anything more, like forming dendrites or "answering" chemically.
Guess that's just a side-effect of how the gen is exposed.
It's more than that. People who have had heart transplants can inherit memories and personality traits from the donor. Cells remember more than they let on and can pass these memories to the recipient.
See this study. I think it's safe to say we have some empirical evidence for this. In the linked study, there's a kid who received a heart from another kid who died trying to retrieve a power ranger and somehow the donor knew that without anyone telling him. Another kid received a heart from a kid who drowned and he became afraid of water.
If I read the cited sources and they turn out to be a bunch of untested hypotheses based on poorly conducted studies… I'll be mad.
Just skimming through it makes a bad first impression.
…I'm not even trying to be derisive. I'm just really angry at how much "there's a study" has become "there's proof". And I shouldn't even be mad because communicating that difference should be the authors' job.
If you value your time, don't read any further because I'm just going to vent a little:
So I lack any formal education (apart from ficking school). The best thing I can say about myself is that I can hold and mostly understand a conversation with people who are actually educated in their field.
But some studies are bad. Like bad-bad. So bad that I think, most people who can read should be able to recognize their flaws if they actually read them.
For example:
I read a study a while back about genetic (as opposed to learned) prepositions of monkeys in relation to their biological sex and preference for toys.
The methodology was bad, but here's the shittiest part imo: At the end of the study, the researchers found that of the 130 or so monkeys, only about half showed any preference for any kind toy. So the researchers excluded the unbiased monkeys from the test. Of the remaining monkeys, still only the males showed any preference for the "male" toys. So the females were also excluded. In the end, only 30 monkeys actually counted, because they showed the hypothesized difference in their preferences. And even those only showed a delta of 10-30% in the time they spent with the toys.
The study should have concluded that most monkeys don't give a shit if a toy has wheels (like a shopping cart, which apparently makes it a "male" toy) or if it's soft, like a plush (which is "female" because boys would never touch a plushy, of course).
Instead, they found that their hypothesis turned out to be correct, after disregarding anything that invalidated their hypothesis.
Where did I get this study from? From social media, of course. Where a bunch of meat heads "proved" that all women genetically want to be tradwives and trans people don't exist or some shit.
Fuck everything about this.