The other sources are
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/star-d-dethroned
Which cites the BMJ
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25886544/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37491091/
I thought this article explained the science better than the Psychiatric Times, so I used it. Lesson learned.
I agree, the source is poor. But I thought the summary was better than the one offered here:
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/star-d-dethroned
Bruce E. Levine is just some guy. Not great. But the sources he cites made the case for me:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37491091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25886544/
I myself am and have been on psychotropics for years, don’t know what I would do without them. Further, as noted, the the STAR*D approach drops from 67% to 35%, which means they do work for some. But reporting that high a rate when the numbers don’t support it is information patients need. The original study seems very problematic with patients that dropped out assigned success rates, and the lack of a control group. I think the information is relevant.
Dear Nitwit,
A reduced faith in science might, hear me out here, ••might•• have something to do with science, ya know, killing the planet and what not. You wanna get some faith back? Maybe apply these new technologies to human happiness, or even, who knows human survival.
One more thing, nimrod. The real risk averse culture? It ain’t your unwashed “zero-sum thinking Millennials” No, it’s your hyper capitalist who’s rigged the system to the point where taking financial risk is erased by government bailouts. They’re the ones who want to eliminate risk.
And it’s that, plus their increased control of what is and is not researched in practised science that leads to our dismay. See above: “planet dying” Imagine something like pencillin, developed entirely within an academic risky environment, getting made today.
There’s risk in true critical thinking, instead of lazy “Kids Today” hand-wringing. So, in future, take a fucking risk.
I was thinking about this watching the doc “Midnight Oil: 1984”. A year and a band (I think) that transcended the angry genre, music was catchy and very popular. So maybe the times will come around again. I feel sick of the media ignoring even the most basic issues (like, dunno, survival and stuff), and I think and hope others will connect with art that expresses some level of discontent. Which is a form of sanity these days.
Thank you.
So sorry, I didn’t see if the article worked. I’m an idiot.
Archived version: https://archive.is/0eou1
If you liked that, you’re going to love this. It’s almost exactly the price tag to switch - completely - to renewables.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-global-price-tag-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-73-trillion
I know, I know, many studies, many different amounts, but come on! Let’s try!
So uh, I’m more of a DDG a problem when I got it, then fix it that way kind of expert, so I don’t exactly remember. I looked in the LS rules, looked in my browser history, can’t find it. I remember only being annoyed because it was because I had to switch to safari to buy something, and with no blockers to save me, I kept getting these system-wide notifications. Me being an idiot is one of the reasons I asked the question if people were updating for security reasons.
I’ll probably regret saying, but I’ve been running High Sierra forever, and plan to keep doing so. Every time I’ve upgraded, I’ve run into problems and either lost the software I bought, or upgraded to the new versions which took away features I needed and added ones I didn’t (looking at you, Scrivener).
I run Little Snitch and generally feel pretty secure with that. Caught an annoying notification attack just the other day. Not sure why upgrading to a new system is needed, but happy to have my ignorance un-ignored.
Haven’t read that, sounds like an interesting take. Thanks for that. I love anything about how ‘order’ was established, since it seems like a given today, but it definitely isn’t.
I wrote a great reply that was brilliant and generous and had all the clever bits, and then Lemmy deleted it.
You’re right, clan-based practices have had and continue to have struggles both with modernisation and basic human rights. They are not idealised Rousseauean societies.
But the author is basically saying that this shift in marriage practices is the sole contributor to Western science. It’s a stretch to be sure, and it doesn’t even have the evidence right.
Here’s a critique with quotes from people way smarter than me.
The article talks about how "the men of the family stayed in their places of birth for life, while the women left the family to live with other groups. "
I thought this was interesting because I recently heard a radio 4 broadcast about how the ban on cousin marriage by the Catholic Church led to the Western world of technology, advancement and individualism. It seemed bogus since I knew about some tribes in the Americas that practiced exactly this kind of pairing outside the tribe, and this study confirms that. So it wasn’t just bogus because it mistook correlation for causation, it was bogus on the evidence as well!
Link to podcast of programme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sh8z
Wiki on book, The WEIRDest People in the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_World
“Inactivist”, that’s a term that really captures the spirit of this kind of non-denial denial.
https://archive.is/rEQMr