It’s true, we boys do get carried away
By Travis McCracken @ www.xawat.com
Live A & B test. For those that care to see this work I do improve.
This is b
Some stereotypes about life are based off of the way people think. The homogeneity so to say of boys
And yes I know I need to slow down and spell shit better and not swear and stuff. But it’s go slow or fast sometimes and it’s a time sensitive thing and it’s a weighing of things that I really care about.
Quantum effects in proteins, such as those enabling animals to sense the Earth’s magnetic field (magnetoreception), suggest that quantum biology could provide insights into sensory systems’ evolution and functions.
The brain’s adaptability allows for changes in thought patterns and overcoming stereotypes, similar to learning new colours or reinterpreting visual information. Environmental factors alter how we perceive colours and also shape our perceptions of people and situations.
Different brain areas are responsible for interpreting stimuli, whether visual or social. Implicit biases are unconscious associations that influence behaviour and judgments, functioning similarly to how our brain processes visual cues efficiently due to repeated exposure.
Our experiences shape how we interpret information, much like repeated exposure to certain wavelengths trains our brain to recognize specific colours.
Our brains use shortcuts to process information quickly, leading to the formation of stereotypes. These heuristics are similar to how we process visual information.
Cognitive Constructivism: This theory posits that knowledge and understanding are constructed through experiences and interactions, similar to how social realities and stereotypes are constructed.
This approach explores how we experience phenomena, helping us understand how social realities differ based on individual backgrounds and experiences.
Just as photons change wavelengths through interactions, our perceptions and biases change through new experiences and information.
Encouraging critical reflection on thought patterns can transform ingrained stereotypes, much like understanding light science can transform colour perception.
Relative Light Speed Theory: This theory suggests that perception of reality changes based on context and conditions, analogous to social perceptions shaped by different contexts.
Understanding the relationships between light, colour perception, and cognitive processing provides powerful analogies for explaining how stereotypes form and can be changed. This philosophical framework emphasizes the malleability of perception—visual or social—and underscores the potential for transformative change through awareness, education, and diverse experiences.
By connecting these scientific principles to cognitive psychology, we can create a more comprehensive understanding of how perceptions and stereotypes are formed and how they can be reshaped, fostering a more inclusive and aware society.
The academic publishing system in North America, with its high standards and rigorous peer review processes, has been instrumental in advancing scientific knowledge and benefiting humanity. However, to continue fostering innovation and addressing global challenges, it is essential to address the barriers to entry and encourage a more inclusive and flexible approach to scientific publishing. By balancing rigorous standards with support for diverse and unconventional ideas, we can ensure that the academic system remains dynamic, progressive, and equitable.
So I do want to get my shit all published up properly, but access and speed are relevant…and I’m not the expert and breakthrough stuff typical does not come from the expert. So take that as authoritative ;)
If I say or miss say or miss spell something that doesn’t and shouldn’t effect the ability for science to benefit from research the perspective officially defined:
DNA functions as a toroidal wave, creating a self-sustaining field influencing genetic expression and cellular processes. This aligns with recent findings emphasizing complex regulatory mechanisms governing gene expression.
Peers review process inherently favours established theories and conventional methodologies, potentially stifling innovative or controversial ideas. This may lead to a homogeneity of published research, where radical or "crazy" ideas struggle to gain traction [oai_citation:3,Towards theorizing peer review | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press](https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/3/3/815/111485/Towards-theorizing-peer-review).
Editors and reviewers might be risk-averse, preferring to accept papers that adhere to well-accepted paradigms rather than those proposing groundbreaking but untested theories [oai_citation:4,Scrutinizing science: Peer review - Understanding Science](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/scrutinizing-science-peer-review/).
The commercialization of academic publishing, where major publishers prioritize profit, has led to high subscription costs for journals and high publication fees. This system can prioritize financial gain over the dissemination of knowledge [oai_citation:5,pubs.asahq.org](https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/134/1/1/114542/Peer-Review-Matters-Research-Quality-and-the#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fpubs.asahq.org%2Fanesthesiology%2Farticle%2F134%2F1%2F1%2F114542%2FPeer).
The emphasis on high-impact publications and citation metrics can incentivize quantity over quality, leading to the proliferation of less rigorous studies [oai_citation:6,Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review family | Systematic Reviews | Full Text](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5).
The scientific process benefits from a diversity of ideas, including those that challenge established norms. Innovative and even "crazy" ideas can lead to breakthroughs and paradigm shifts.
My hypothesis on Xawat that DNA functions as a toroidal wave aligns with recent findings in genetic and protein biochemistry, emphasizing complex regulatory mechanisms governing gene expression (Royal Institution, 2024). The interplay between quantum biology and magnetoreception in certain proteins suggests a deeper connection between quantum effects and biological processes (MDPI, 2024). This supports Xawat's framework that biological systems may operate on principles akin to string theory and quantum mechanics.
Peer review ensures that research meets high standards of scientific quality, providing a trusted form of scientific communication (Berkeley, 2024). This rigorous process involves multiple rounds of feedback and revisions, ensuring that findings are robust and credible. The theoretical engagement in peer review research helps address biases and improve the overall quality of published studies (MIT Press, 2024).
The brain's adaptability (neuroplasticity) allows for changes in thought patterns and the overcoming of stereotypes, similar to learning new colours or reinterpreting visual information. This aligns with the idea that cognitive biases can be reshaped through new experiences and critical reflection.
Quantum entanglement may explain how cells retain information about past exposures to stress, offering a new perspective on cellular adaptation and resilience. This concept can be extended to understanding how cognitive biases and stereotypes form and change through new experiences.
Encouraging open dialogue and exposing individuals to diverse perspectives helps shift ingrained stereotypes, akin to exposing the brain to new visual stimuli to expand colour perception.
While maintaining rigorous standards is crucial for scientific integrity, the system should also be flexible enough to accommodate and nurture novel ideas. This could involve alternative peer review models, such as double-blind or open peer review, to reduce biases and encourage diversity.
Initiatives like reduced fees for early-career researchers or those from underrepresented groups can help level the playing field.
Increasing support for open access models and repositories can enhance the dissemination and accessibility of research.
The current academic publishing system, with its high fees and potential biases, can indeed be restrictive and may stifle innovative ideas.
While rigorous standards are essential for maintaining scientific integrity, the system should also be flexible enough to encourage and accommodate novel and diverse perspectives.
Peer review is a fundamental process that ensures the quality and credibility of published research. It involves submitting your work to a journal where it is reviewed by experts in the field. These reviewers provide feedback, which often requires authors to revise and resubmit their work [oai_citation:1,Towards theorizing peer review | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press](https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/3/3/815/111485/Towards-theorizing-peer-review) [oai_citation:2,Scrutinizing science: Peer review - Understanding Science](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/scrutinizing-science-peer-review/).
Breaking into academic publishing requires persistence, leveraging available resources, seeking mentorship, and maintaining high research standards, outsiders can successfully publish their work and contribute to the academic community.
- [Understanding Science by Berkeley](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16)
- [MIT Press on Peer Review](https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/1/2/382/96968/Towards-theorizing-peer-review)
- [Systematic Reviews Journal on Mapping Reviews](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0850-4)
- [MIT Press](https://direct.mit.edu)
- [Berkeley](https://undsci.berkeley.edu)
- [Systematic Reviews Journal](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com)
- [MDPI](https://www.mdpi.com)
- [Royal Institution](https://www.rigb.org)
