Opher Donchin

2.5K posts

Opher Donchin

Opher Donchin

@opherdonchin

Neuroscientist studying motor control and the physiology of the motor system.

beer sheva, israel Katılım Ocak 2011
343 Takip Edilen715 Takipçiler
Opher Donchin retweetledi
Opher Donchin retweetledi
Josh Goldberg Lab 🇮🇱💔
Josh Goldberg Lab 🇮🇱💔@GoldbergLab·
excellent new paper breaking a long-standing impasse by the identification of specific behavioral conditions under which CINs are recruited to augment DA release in vivo : Cholinergic modulation of dopamine release drives effortful behaviour nature.com/articles/s4158…
English
0
12
42
3.7K
Kording Lab 🦖
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab·
This Gershman and Ullman paper is just so cool in showing that humans really can't not view correlation without assuming causality. Summary of my quixotic life in neuroscience: gershmanlab.com/pubs/GershmanU…
English
3
19
98
9K
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab @vineettiruvadi @ehudahissar Because proving that there are many conditions in which what everyone assumes is actually true isn't nearly as interesting as identifying the places where the common wisdom is wrong.
English
1
0
1
31
Kording Lab 🦖
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab·
@opherdonchin @vineettiruvadi @ehudahissar Wait how is a geometrical statement about the covariance structure ideology or salesmanship? In a 1/f world we can answer exactly the how correlated are correlation and causation question!
English
1
0
0
28
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab @vineettiruvadi @ehudahissar That's just ideology and salesmanship. The interesting question is how much we know about where the boundary lies. Separately: how many correlations of what strength would be sufficient to be evidence for causality? IOW: does causality require agency?
English
1
0
0
35
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab @vineettiruvadi @ehudahissar I think the ms frames the question wrong. Correlation <> Causation is old hat. Correlation suggests there may be causation under the following conditions is much more productive and interesting.
English
1
0
2
36
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab @vineettiruvadi I'm not sure I've seen any sort of quantitative study of how these things all interact, especially given priors on the natural distribution of prevalence and magnitude of causal effects. Is there something out there?
English
1
0
2
35
Opher Donchin retweetledi
Simon Maechling
Simon Maechling@simonmaechling·
Let’s bring science back to X. Not influencers. Not grifters. Just scientists. Who’s worth following? 👇
English
501
266
3.3K
123.9K
Alice Evans
Alice Evans@_alice_evans·
What are the most romantic songs from world history? NOT songs about unrequited love NOR short-run intimacy ('Baby it's Cold Outside') But songs that celebrate mutual devotion, where each party's utility is weighted equally? I have a research idea & want your help!! 🙏
English
29
2
24
7.2K
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@CVakalopoulos @KordingLab Possibly. My question ("how reliable should the literature be, ideally?") may also be the wrong question. What is the right one? I love good questions!
English
0
0
1
18
Costa Vakalopoulos
Costa Vakalopoulos@CVakalopoulos·
That’s entirely the wrong question. It’s a wholesale change in academic culture that’s required and much of that is a need to dispense with the current vetting system of default markers that creates an indefinite number of paper mill themes, ones that simple correlational studies engender
English
1
0
1
23
Kording Lab 🦖
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab·
People here believe that the majority of neuroscience papers transparently do not contribute to science. If so, what does that mean for our field? How can we change things?
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab

Which proportion of neuroscience abstracts has the following structure: (1) Big question or need (2) we do stuff that vaguely relates to (1). (3) Our stuff is big and complicated and has p values. (4) back to (1) but without having advanced it.

English
20
8
65
17.9K
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab There's always tradeoffs. It doesn't have to be black and white or universal. It would be good to encourage them and offer excellent opportunities. Compulsory classes aren't bad but will not create 100% change.
English
0
0
1
40
Kording Lab 🦖
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab·
@opherdonchin You hold that the methods geniuses who can't produce a logical argument can't learn how to tighten their argument? Or that its not worth their time?
English
1
0
0
51
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab Logical clarity seems like an arbitrary standard. I know scientists who consistently identify field changing experiments and can't put together a coherent argument. I know methodological geniuses, too. That also moves the field.
English
1
0
1
83
Kording Lab 🦖
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab·
@opherdonchin I agree. But not that papers from median institutions lack logic or clarity than those from top institutions. On average probably lower impact, maybe more incremental, certainly less expensive setups. But maybe less logically inconsistent as no need to pretend "first".
English
1
0
0
84
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@neurosutras @KordingLab I've been at low tier and high tier institutions. There's a lot of luck involved but in aggregate the scientists at the higher tier institutions worked harder and smarter as grad students and the grad students work harder and smarter today.
English
0
0
1
13
Opher Donchin
Opher Donchin@opherdonchin·
@KordingLab 100% is rarely optimal. You must trade off false positives with false negatives and strong constraints have their own costs. That said, your current qualified formulation may not contradict your original survey.
English
0
0
1
25
Kording Lab 🦖
Kording Lab 🦖@KordingLab·
@opherdonchin I think that 100% of highly read papers should be done in a way where the logic is clear to anyone with deep understanding of the field.
English
2
0
0
279