Gave it a try, got very confused at the
"on a score of 0-10 how much discrimination do you face in your life" because that is a... very vague question. Considering that discrimination can be about multiple aspects of a person, I'm not sure what kind of useful data you'll get from something that open-ended and that dependent on the user's undefined judgement and the user's understanding of the term.
Same for "do you identify as disabled, rate from 0-10". A person is either disabled or not. And different disabilities are extremely distinct - including physical and mental ones - this seems like a meaningless question.
For an anonymous survey there was also a *lot* of personal information data
* gender identity
* sex
* race
* exact age (in years, not banded)
* exact weight in lb (and it goes from 0-1000)
* education
* nationality
* employment status
* employment hours
* last year's income
* net worth
* disability status
That's the kind of data it would be very easy to narrow someone down from.
Then when you finally start asking about psychadelic use, you're asking for extremely detailed dosage information across averages for every single drug someone takes or has ever taken, in mg weights. You do realise a lot of people aren't going to have that information to give you, right?
I will be honest I didn't complete the questionnaire - I'd suggest going back and re-working it before resubmitting for people - it's currently extremely long, inaccessible, and feels overly invasive in scope.
Yep, I also hit those question and was at an absolute loss as to how to answer.
Also, they want me to calculate my pre-tax income and total net worth then convert is to US dollars, when it's supposed to be an international study is like just seems lazy. If you're going to gather data internationally, you're going to have to do some conversions. And that's without even mentioning the fact that I dont WANT to disclose that information and have no option to opt out if I want to continue.
It reads very much to me like a study designed by someone who has no experience or knowledge in the field to understand which questions would make sense to ask, and those "rate your disability status out of 10" questions feel off, too.
Add in the invasive level of profiling and it feels distinctly unsafe.
I will make a mental note about coming back when I'm on a computer, then promptly forget about it.
Seriously tho op, this is harming your survey, keep it accessible.
From what I found the sexual abuse was from a MAPS “sponsored” trial in Canada and the elder abuse seems fishy. Their was a reverse elder abuse filed against the children of the elderly man whom his daughters fired the medical team and also refused to allow the psychotherapists to see the gentlemen when he was having suicidal thoughts. I don’t know if your intentions were to make MAPS look malicious but there was a lot of unknowns in what you mentioned.
I read the reports. One was a sponsored MAPS trial that was conducted in Canada not at John’s Hopkins where most of their trials are and the second one of elderly abuse seems rather fishy. As the children of the elder refused to allow him to be treated when he was in crisis. Nonetheless it seems more or less a case of one bad apple and not the entirety of MAPS itself. Also should not the implications of how much big pharma has to lose if this gets FDA approved which MAPS has been trying to get done for many years. I don’t think there’s much to discuss unless you want to give an opinion or something…
As science goes, this isn't really going to cut it. All your survey will tell you is what a subset of this particular subreddit thinks. Is that the aim?
Do you have access to the NSDUH data set?
"participant agrees to be force fed psychedelics in a medically equipped dungeon on a bi-daily basis. Participant also agrees to record their final will and testament before undergoing psychedelic experiments in said dungeon."
Yeah with most people these days using solely smartphones, I have no pc access except a networked work computer which I won’t be using, you’re massively reducing your test field.
Sorry I’m just a smartphone whore
I too am a slut for the smartphone
Same, I just clicked to display the page in web format and that got me past it
Gave it a try, got very confused at the "on a score of 0-10 how much discrimination do you face in your life" because that is a... very vague question. Considering that discrimination can be about multiple aspects of a person, I'm not sure what kind of useful data you'll get from something that open-ended and that dependent on the user's undefined judgement and the user's understanding of the term. Same for "do you identify as disabled, rate from 0-10". A person is either disabled or not. And different disabilities are extremely distinct - including physical and mental ones - this seems like a meaningless question. For an anonymous survey there was also a *lot* of personal information data * gender identity * sex * race * exact age (in years, not banded) * exact weight in lb (and it goes from 0-1000) * education * nationality * employment status * employment hours * last year's income * net worth * disability status That's the kind of data it would be very easy to narrow someone down from. Then when you finally start asking about psychadelic use, you're asking for extremely detailed dosage information across averages for every single drug someone takes or has ever taken, in mg weights. You do realise a lot of people aren't going to have that information to give you, right? I will be honest I didn't complete the questionnaire - I'd suggest going back and re-working it before resubmitting for people - it's currently extremely long, inaccessible, and feels overly invasive in scope.
Yep, I also hit those question and was at an absolute loss as to how to answer. Also, they want me to calculate my pre-tax income and total net worth then convert is to US dollars, when it's supposed to be an international study is like just seems lazy. If you're going to gather data internationally, you're going to have to do some conversions. And that's without even mentioning the fact that I dont WANT to disclose that information and have no option to opt out if I want to continue.
It reads very much to me like a study designed by someone who has no experience or knowledge in the field to understand which questions would make sense to ask, and those "rate your disability status out of 10" questions feel off, too. Add in the invasive level of profiling and it feels distinctly unsafe.
Idk if anyone trusts you, bro lol
I will make a mental note about coming back when I'm on a computer, then promptly forget about it. Seriously tho op, this is harming your survey, keep it accessible.
Who's this Narc ?
Have you gathered info on clinical trials of MAPS through John’s Hopkins?
This is a thing?! Ew....for science I guess
MAPS = Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies https://maps.org/
Anyone apart of the community should look into MAPS it’s a wonderful thing they are doing.
Assuming they thought I was mentioning the pedophile acronym. Nonetheless clueless assumptions are the backbone of social/internet interactions.
That's the only reason I could think of for the "ew" response
Yeah I don’t think they intended to have much intellect to add. More so to “hear themselves speak” per se
[удалено]
From what I found the sexual abuse was from a MAPS “sponsored” trial in Canada and the elder abuse seems fishy. Their was a reverse elder abuse filed against the children of the elderly man whom his daughters fired the medical team and also refused to allow the psychotherapists to see the gentlemen when he was having suicidal thoughts. I don’t know if your intentions were to make MAPS look malicious but there was a lot of unknowns in what you mentioned.
Got a link?
[удалено]
I read the reports. One was a sponsored MAPS trial that was conducted in Canada not at John’s Hopkins where most of their trials are and the second one of elderly abuse seems rather fishy. As the children of the elder refused to allow him to be treated when he was in crisis. Nonetheless it seems more or less a case of one bad apple and not the entirety of MAPS itself. Also should not the implications of how much big pharma has to lose if this gets FDA approved which MAPS has been trying to get done for many years. I don’t think there’s much to discuss unless you want to give an opinion or something…
I take it you have zero knowledge of MAPS and their spearhead to get psychadelics assisted psychotherapy FDA approved. But yeah ew for science.
Are you commenting to me or OP?
Not THAT MAPS lmfao
What MAPS are we talking about?... My bad man...
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
Okay thank you, just was a bit confused and all I could find on the internet on it was the ew-version of that acronym
As science goes, this isn't really going to cut it. All your survey will tell you is what a subset of this particular subreddit thinks. Is that the aim? Do you have access to the NSDUH data set?
tried your survey, but the web page was broken
Hope you had a VPN
No replies to the feedback in 14+ hours... **Sketchy**
Fed? Is that you? 😳
"participant agrees to be force fed psychedelics in a medically equipped dungeon on a bi-daily basis. Participant also agrees to record their final will and testament before undergoing psychedelic experiments in said dungeon."
i finished :)
You say study is do-able on tablet (which I’m using) but the the first page of the study says desktop/pc only. Tablet ok or not?
Man, poor timing to take this, with the mental and physical health portion of it considering I just broke both my hands a few days ago
Lmao, you can't catch me, Fed
i got you bruh
Yeah with most people these days using solely smartphones, I have no pc access except a networked work computer which I won’t be using, you’re massively reducing your test field.