this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
171 points (83.8% liked)

Science

17331 readers
12 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
[–] antonim 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

You've forgotten what we're talking about in the first place. To explain the rise in mental illnesses, you have to find what changed in people's environment that could affect the health situation. If nothing in the environment has changed, the expected result would be that there would be no change in the outcomes either. If the discrimination has been roughly the same for the last few decades, why would it suddenly start resulting in different rates of mental illnesses?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
[–] antonim 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are some of those assumptions? Maybe it is reductionist, but I haven't seen you or the Nature article present a more nuanced approach (or an approach at all). And personally this isn't a topic that I find myself emotionally very invested in, and I'm far from an expert on sociology, so I really would be interested in learning about better approaches. Do your and the Nature article make fewer assumptions for your framing to work?

Haidt articulated his points and methods very clearly and you shifted away from them without any explanation, as far as I can see. This isn't just disagreement within the conversation, but a disagreement on what the discussion is supposed to be about. Only now have you actually addressed what is an essental part of Haidt's argumentation, but still very vaguely.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)