Your IP has been blocked. Please perform the action below to regain access.
75.126.130.58-
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
Not Necessarily for Neuroscientists
Each issue of this magazine covers very interesting topics in psychology and neuroscience, though it is by no means "Science". I expected the depth of the articles to be along the lines of Scientific American, its parent publication, and I am occasionally disappointed by the superficiality of some of the content.
Nonetheless, I find this magazine to address fascinating questions concerning the mind and to be very accessible if you do not have a background in the sciences. With that said though, if you are a neuroscientist, you may find "Nature Neuroscience" to be more satisfying.
Rating: 
-
A favorite magazine
This is one of my favorite periodicals that I look forward to reading when issued. There are always interesting facts, articles, and stories related to the human mind. The range of topics that each issue covers is very wide and always leads to further thought and research during my free time.
Rating: -
Excellent Psychology Magazine
I was pleasently surprised by the level of quality in this magazine. The articles are clinically pertinent, yet not so filled with jargon that a layman couldn't understand, nor does it promote "pop" psychology. Very pleased with this product.
Rating: 
-
Scientific American Mind doesn't live up to its title!
Scientific American Mind doesn't live up to its title!
The recent article "Brain Stain" makes many claims which don't begin to live up to the standard of "scientific." Instead the article follow the usual pattern of the deniers of traumatic results from childhood abuse. It focuses on the long discredited argument that it is not possible to repress memories of trauma, and without substantiating this claim, uses it to paint various therapeutic treatments for childhood sexual abuse as bogus and harmful. To do this, the article typically states one side of an argument as uncontested fact, and mentions selective studies they claim support this fact.
A major unscientific technique the article uses is to cite only a few, one-sided studies, draw a biases interpretation and seal the deal by not citing searchable sources.
As an example, the authors claim there have been no studies proving repression (and by default recovered memories) of traumatic abuse. In fact there have such studies, including ones that demonstrated that some young children with medically documented sexual abuse, later did not recall the events. Some who did later recall the events, had long periods of their life when the did not member the events.
[...]
Dr. Freyd herself recalled, independent of therapy, memories of early sexual abuse that she had forgotten until she was an adult. Of course the studies she lists are more scientifically persuasive than one person's report, but she is not just another anecdotal claimant. In fact she is the daughter of the two founders of The False Memory Syndrom Foundation, the main organization behind much of the denial in the US of repression, repressed memories and ability of some people to later recall early, forgotten trauma. Dr. Freyd's story is very revealing. She did not take her parents to court, but after her mother realized her daughter believed her father had been abusive, the mother founded FMSF and has been a fierce opponent of efforts to support and if possible validate claims of early abuse, later realized.
Simply put, it is not scientific to make one sided claims, not support them with a balanced selection of the data and then draw unfounded claims. More importantly, it is also not humane to use this kind of false science to malign both the efforts to uncover abuse and where possible to treat it's devastating results.
The readers of Scientific American Mind are being misused in the case of this shoddy article.
Walter Teague, LCSW-C
Rating: -
It's gotta get better
I just finished reading the October 2007 article called Brain Stains. You've got to be kidding. There is NO substantiating material on any of this 'false memory' stuff in this article. In fact, this case was apparently dismissed. Therapists are a hard working bunch of people who are taking the rap for things that do not exist. If this magazine wants to make it with 'people in the know' they are going to have to go back and do some better journalizing. This is what I refer to as sensationalistic presentation. Get your facts straight. This is the 21st century and people are more aware of the need to provide out right proof. I may just read your magazine to let people know that you're shamming them.
Shamai Currim Phd
Speaking of Mini DisplayPort, here's another entry from Apple in the shipping hall of shame. They're shipping the five-inch Mini-DiplayPort-to-DVI adapter in a box that's bigger than the MacBook's. Check out the waste.
As Kevin notes, it might seem nitpicky, but when you compare this to how much Apple boasts on the MacBook's green packaging, it is kind of jarring:
