Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-need-mouse-sudoku dept.

Sustained stress erodes memory, and the immune system plays a key role in the cognitive impairment, according to a new study from researchers at The Ohio State University.

[...] "This is chronic stress. It's not just the stress of giving a talk or meeting someone new," said lead researcher Jonathan Godbout, associate professor of neuroscience at Ohio State.

This is the first study of its kind to establish the relationship between short-term memory and prolonged stress. In the case of the mice, that meant repeat visits from a larger, nasty intruder mouse.

Mice that were repeatedly exposed to the aggressive intruder had a hard time recalling where the escape hole was in a maze they'd mastered prior to the stressful period.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:34PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:34PM (#452275) Journal

    And here we have the post-modernist "modernist". By assuming nefarious intent by an entire field of study that applies to scientific method, they can safely distance themselves from any sort of structured, objective evidence.

    When you have an objection to a methodology used, object to that methodology, and point out the problems. When you pretend an entire field is composed of a conspiracy to mislead, you become crazy and the misled party by your own will.

    Worse still, you're allowing yourself to subjectively and passively declare things that suit your biases valid, without necessarily having a solid criteria that would also cause you to face the things you might be wrong about.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:56PM (#452630)

    By assuming nefarious intent

    I didn't see that. Oftentimes they do pull explanations out of nowhere, but that doesn't mean their intent is nefarious. I wish the social sciences were more objective and structured, but the studies often simply aren't.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:12PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:12PM (#452641) Journal

      But they also very often are. So again, if you have a problem with methodology, say so.

      This thread stated with me doing exactly that(really more how the perfectly reasonable methodology got popularized in the media). If you read actual papers, not abstracts, not "science news", you'll find that overwhelmingly sociologists, psychologists, and other "soft" scientists do a very good job of identifying confounding variables, trying to control for them, and providing evidence. Many times, you can spot a shitty paper 10 words into the methodology section.

      And good journals(e.g. APA's health psychology) junk those before they see the light of day.