High level research & discussion outside of academia?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all,

Is there a forum (in the wider sense) for high level intelligent discussion, sharing, learning and progressing understanding outside of formal university based academic research? Either of autism its self or discussion through autistic eyes of psychology, sociology, linguistics and all matters of human understanding and interaction.

Context.

I have autism and ADD. I'm smart by usual standards but nothing special, but I have an incredible intelligent understanding of people, their communication and interactions, how their minds work. My insights and understanding go way beyond my general intelligence and beyond anyone I've yet to meet. And yes I've sense checked for my own egotistical delusion on various people objectively smarter than me.

I want to make use of what I know and use it to further research and understanding, but I see no route to credibility with and access to academics when you don't speak their language or hold their qualifications. And forums such as this are much more about day to day matters, there isn't even a sub forum for academic discussion.

I'm hoping there might be an open forum or similar that someone can direct me to? Or who knows, even a researcher browsing looking for data or new questions.

If what you know isn't based on research or observable facts, it will be useless in the context of research. Research is based on things that are testable and provable, not a single individual's personal experience, social intuition, or whatever else your knowledge about people consists of.

An introductory textbook on psychological research will help you to speak and understand the lingo.

All of the things researchers work on is based on previous research and academic knowledge, so, if you don't know or understand that stuff, there will be nothing for you to talk to the researchers about.

You have to gain respect first by getting qualified, or nobody in science will listen to you, that`s the way science works, as starkid says they are not interested in your feelings but on tests & facts.

If you have the aptitude, time & finances why not take a home study degree course in a hard science like biology for example? then specialise in something like genetics. Only then will you probably be invited to join a closed forum for international researchers.

Yep I'm aware of research requirements and limited value of individual claims. I tried to indicate that in mentioning sense checking myself against others but it's impossible to communicate everything to close off all questions and concerns in any reasonable length message. I believe I have valuable understanding and an, albeit incomplete, methodology based on various theories and innovative techniques, primarily using low certainty assumptions to access otherwise unobtainable high quality information and using the unknown aspects of a model to improve or disprove it. I believe an open minded researcher would see me as credible fairly quickly, but the opportunity is unlikely. More realistically I'm confident I'd earn consensus credibility in the kind of forum I'm hoping might exist and maybe gain access that way.

I yearn to have my findings and conclusions and entire framework of understanding questioned and challenged, rather than fending off understandable but tedious assumptions due to being an exception to the rule. It's happened only once, an incredible Physics student was the first and still only person I've met smart, aware, open minded and interested enough to be on my level who also understood how I process and communicate. I learnt so much from her and a chance to share, ask and explain. But most of all after a lifetime of being unfairly judged and only my own belief in myself, someone understanding me validated me and my whole belief structure. And that's why I'm confident my self belief is valid, because someone else validated it

The short answer would be to check out some of the top science discussion forums:
https://blog.feedspot.com/science_forums/

… Unfortunately, the golden days of internet forums are probably behind us (blame Facebook, twitter, reddit etc.), so many serious online forums have likely withered away or at least become less active.

Furthermore, the pinnacle of human knowledge is currently found within the scientific community - and specifically in peer-reviewed scientific journals. At the same time, there are certain theoretical and empirical standards with regard to research (the scientific method) which are often considered a prerequisite for being taken seriously by those in academics and research - regardless if one has an academic degree or not.

The longer answer goes something like this:

Scientific evidence is information gathered from scientific research, which takes a lot of time (and patience!) to conduct. But there are a few things that all this research needs to have in common to make it possible for decision-makers, and ultimately all of us, to accept it as "evidence".

• It must be objective and unbiased: If a person's claims are based on their beliefs and prejudices, then the claim cannot be said to be objective, and is therefore invalid. If a person cites only the data that supports their conclusion while ignoring the data that refutes it, then the conclusion is biased, and hence invalid.

• It must be valid and accurate: Scientific evidence relies on data, and it is crucial for researchers to ensure that the data they collect is representative of the true situation.  This means using proven and appropriate ways of collecting and analyzing the data and ensuring the research is conducted ethically and safely.

• It must be peer-reviewed and professionally vetted: This step is the most crucial, and it turns research into the "evidence" that we all talk about.  The researcher has to present their data, results and conclusions in the form of a scientific report or paper (not a convoluted sales pitch).  This must be reviewed by their scientific peers -- only they are qualified to assess the validity of the methods and the accuracy of the conclusions the researcher has drawn from the results.

The next time someone says they have "scientific evidence" to back up their case, ask a few questions.

• Who funded the research and why?  If the funding came from a person or corporation that stands to profit only from publishing the conclusions (such as when a pharmaceutical company announces a "breakthrough"), then the conclusions are suspect.

• How much evidence is there and how was it gathered?  A few isolated individuals claiming the efficacy of a diet supplement ("It made me smarter!") is suspect, while double-blind tests on thousands of subjects producing measurable data is more likely to be valid.

• Was the sample size or location representative of the "real" situation?  Testing a dozen men with a drug intended to treat uterine cancer is not valid science, while double-blind tests on thousands of pre-menopausal women producing measurable data with the same drug is more likely to be valid.

• Has the research been published in an internationally-accepted, peer-reviewed journal, or is it only available online on a personal or organization's own website?  The former is a strong indication of validity, while the latter is a strong indication of bias and invalid claims (not to mention greed and profit-motive).

• Do a majority of other scientists agree on these results?  A few outliers will always support someone's claims, no matter how wrong those claims may be, just as a few outliers will always disagree with valid claims determined by scientific methods.

• If a few disagree, are they qualified to evaluate the issue?  For example, a medical doctor and an astronomer are both scientists -- but that doesn't mean the astronomer is qualified to perform heart surgery, or that the surgeon is qualified to discuss orbital mechanics around a black hole.

And if someone claims there is a "lack" of evidence on a contested issue, ask them to clarify. These two conditions do not mean the same thing:

• Peer-reviewed research has been carried out, and found no proof of an effect.

• No one has yet funded research to examine the issue.

The former implies that no one has been able to replicate and verify the original research, while the latter may imply that the line of research is not worth pursuing.  In either case, when a claim is challenged on the grounds of "lack of evidence", it is incumbent upon the person making the original claim to provide the evidence -- the challenger is under no obligation to provide proof of lack of evidence (you cannot prove the non-existence of something anyway).

You don't. I'm just putting it simply. Whatever you might know, people who have experience and education in the field already know what you know and more. The knowledge won't be valuable to them. You will very likely annoy them. Better to go somewhere and ask questions rather than try to impart knowledge.


This is one way I know that you don't have "valuable understanding." Science isn't based on assumptions. It's not based on sitting around thinking about stuff; there have to be experiments and results and interpretation based on previous research. If you haven't done any of that and you aren't trying to start doing it, you are wasting your time.

Search online or in a library to see whether anyone has done any research on your topic. That will show you what is valuable to researchers and what your ideas are missing.

Starkid brings up valid points; hence, if your conclusions are based solely on assumptions and subjective thinking, then at best you can only claim to be doing "amateur philosophy" than any actual science.

Sorry haven't had time to get back to this. There's some selective reading of what I've said happening, but that's to be expected. I appreciate the info given and I'll leave the assumptions alone.

GGPViper, thanks for the info, I suspect you're right about what's behind us, structure can be good but unfortunately it also means barriers. I'll continue my efforts