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.
Thank you.
So sorry, I didn’t see if the article worked. I’m an idiot.
Archived version: https://archive.is/0eou1
Upvoted for correct use of word ‘grok’, but definitely want to learn more about agent-based modelling. If for no other reason than truth inoculation is one of the more vital battles of our time.
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.
Good job. I don’t understand very much of that, so that makes me all the more grateful. Thank you.
I call mine Supercar. 167000 miles and still going. I’m shooting for forever.
It’s a good question. Probably? I use Deezer, which is lossless (and my own collection), but when I listened to mp3s, I could tell the difference between good ones and bad ones. I would see if you can find a place that allows testing of headphones, because as much as I love these ones, it really is a tone question. Find something you like. There may be online services in your country that allow test and reture too. Just avoid paying $60,000 for one. That’s too much.
Very specifically, my Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro headphones.
I was lucky enough to go to a retail store with plenty of display models and I tried headphones that cost €2000 and up. They were so cheap for what they were (€139), I’m probably going to buy an extra pair in case they stop making them. Too good to be true. Use them everyday, and still surprised at the new things I’m hearing in songs played a thousand times.
I have to chime in here, as it’s a subject close to my heart. The old Pyrex measuring cups don’t do this. I went out of my way to buy some on eBay. I can’t imagine why they redesigned like this, but there’s a lot of things I can’t imagine.