3 ms·

It's more that it seems like the paper has a very large axe to grind.

• s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think it is clear they have a strong personal opinion about something that want people to recognize. I think this is clear from the title of the paper: "Stop that! It’s not Tourette’s but a new type of mass sociogenic illness" I don't think that is inappropriate. Mass sociogenic illnesses are recognized and generally thought to be related to stress and psychological conditions. It makes sense that they would opine on what these stressors and conditions are, and back them up with a dozen references.
• jollybean 5y ago
  It doesn't make that clear at all, it's just an editorialisation. The thrust of the paper, which is that behaviours seem to be on some level 'contagious' is an absolutely important issue. If these can be contagious, imagine what other 'in the range of normative' types of behaviours are equally contagious? Anyone who's around small children knows how immediately and intimately they observe and learn behaviour, it's definitely something we don't think of enough. I'm not sure if I agree with the thesis in that attention-seeking is a fundamental driver for most, I think it is for a very large cohort and is a 'relevant factor' for further study. Though it's a tough one to decompose no doubt.
  • jfengel 5y ago
    It's unusual to editorialize in the abstract like that. It's not uncommon to puff up the merit of the work in the last sentence or two, but making sweeping generalizations about "modern man" is usually beyond the pale.
    • jollybean 5y ago
      In that context I'm inclined to agree, in a scientific abstract, yes.