If you can't get fresh, instant is fine
JWBananas
Another gem of the Internet: YouTube video IDs with actual dashes in them!
I understood that reference
So were the Prophets, apparently. I bet Q felt their energy behind that punch and noped out of there.
No problem, hope it was helpful. I will review further when I have time.
It was a typo that has been corrected to AFAB. The edit may not have federated to your instance yet.
A typo. It should be AFAB, assigned female at birth.
I found these citations in a paper on the first page of Google. I apologize but I have not verified them.
Fayyad J, De Graaf R, Kessler R, et al. Cross-national prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190(5):402–409.
Retz W, Retz-Junginger P, Thome J, et al. Pharmacological treatment of adult ADHD in Europe. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2011;12(suppl 1):89–94.
Newcorn JH, Weiss M, Stein MA. The complexity of ADHD: diagnosis and treatment of the adult patient with comorbidities. CNS Spectr. 2007;12(suppl 12):1–14. quiz 15–16.
See the gear icon on the right? That's what it's there for.
We also used to call PTSD "shell shock" even though you don't have to go to war to be affected. Science and medicine change and improve over time.
People are inherently bad at rating things. Why not run a "This or that?" style study instead?
Given a list of items to rate, pair them up randomly. Ask a person which item they like better out of each pair. Run through Final Four type eliminations until you get down to their number one preference.
Run through this process for each person, beginning with different random pairings every time.
Record data on all the choices - not just the final ones. You should be able to get good data like that.
For example, there will probably be a thing that is so disliked that it gets eliminated in the first round more frequently than anything else. The inverse will likely be true of a highly-preferred item. And I am sure you can identify other insights as well.