In my world policy decisions are built in facts. The references are part of the process by which you build confidence in the policy direction by showing the information on which the policy is based. If those references turn out to be faulty then the policy rationale falls apart.
But we are in the era of vibe governance and they don't care about facts. They will "fix" the document by selecting a new set of facts that matches the desired outcome. We used to refer to it as "decision based evidence making".
I think I have finally found a generation gap that I think is real; old people like me would rather read than watch. A lot of my students would rather watch than read.
I avoided the Wikipedia entry because all of the the examples censor the genitalia. It's such a strange decision but the inclusion is necessary for this discussion.
I think the more important overlap is in the brain itself. We have known that regions of cortex that register genital stimulation are adjacent to/overlap with the area hat registers foot stimulation since Penfield did the first mapping of cortex in the 1930s.
In answer to "that's true for perception, but why the excitement for looking" lays in that the homuncular representation is not a simple one. We know that there are multiple homuncululi tied to different types of perception, and there is more modern work that ties the planning and goal systems to the functional centres around key points of the homonculi. The physical closeness of the two is possibly responsible for the mingling of the two representations. Back in the day there was even a mechanism for it - "ephaptic excitation" - where axons running in a bundle could activate neighbouring fibres through changing the ionic composition of the fluid around them.
This wasn't a published study. This was beers with the folks in the genetics lab at the hospital I worked at. No patient names or other identifying information was involved. They did tissue matching etc. and ran into the issue all the time. On a personal note two close friends have found out they had different biological dads than they thought they did. So maybe my perspective is skewed somewhat.
Incredibly common. I haven't seen any recent estimates but I recall at one time that ~15% of children did not have the biological fathers than they thought they did. It's not to point the finger at women - rates of infidelity may be even higher among men, it's just harder to track independently.
Dr. Bob @ DrBob @lemmy.ca Posts 2Comments 561Joined 2 yr. ago
She was never quiet about this.