4 ms·

No. Some of us do, in fact, seek the truth and attempt to face it. You are being dismissed out-of-hand because you make extraordinary, non-falsifiable claims (

No. Some of us do, in fact, seek the truth and attempt to face it. You are being dismissed out-of-hand because you make extraordinary, non-falsifiable claims ("None of what's happening is a mistake") without bothering to present any evidence in support of them.

rglover 4y ago
Testosterone rates are down over the last 50 years [1]. That correlates with the changes to food production to lower costs [2], [3]. Based on your "alex jones" jab, you clearly took my statement to refer to a "conspiracy," when really I attribute these changes to a combination of: 1. Financial incentives for corner-cutting which are bolstered by government policies increasing regulation (production, safety, employment, etc) [4], leading to companies having to spend more for compliance and look for ways to corner cut, with the unfortunate choice being product quality, or, increased prices. 2. The government legislating to have ever-increasing budgets for entitlement programs [5] and other superfluous spending which necessitate higher taxes (financial pressure on working class people) and money printing. These, predictably, lead to inflation which corporations combat by increasing prices and so upward mobility gets knee-capped for a large chunk of the population. On the relationships side, divorces went up significantly in the 80s and were stable until the early 2010s [6] as marriages started to decline and single parenting increased [7]. The greater point being, all of these changes can be attributed back to social changes with a root cause of government decision making. Like I said, look around. It's all there. Admittedly, it's complex and it's far too easy to take an irrational stance in the form of "it's the globalists!" but in reality, a lot of poor decision making and mismanagement in the government is the root of our woes. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063751/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063751/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20516261/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20516261/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21367944/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21367944/ [4] https://www.nahb.org/blog/2021/05/regulatory-costs-add-a-whopping-93870-to-new-home-prices/ https://www.nahb.org/blog/2021/05/regulatory-costs-add-a-who... [5] https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0027_entitlement-programs-proj https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0027_entitlement-programs... [6] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-year-low https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-... [7] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-...
- marshray 4y ago
  [1] Not impressed by this study of only Israeli men over 2006 to 2019. For every age range, the number of subjects went up during the study period. Overall, the study ended with about twice the number of subjects in the last period than the first. Look at Chart A. The error bars are noticeably smaller for later periods compared to the earlier periods. Something else is going on in this data that they are not accounting for. Probably some combination of either the tests were changed, or the criteria for ordering the test were loosened over the study period. The other stuff you wrote is just the same right-wing navel-gazing that I've heard over and over since the 1980's.
  - rglover 4y ago
    I knew this would be your response. You met someone who doesn't capitulate to your manipulation, took the time to cite things, and you're predictably "not impressed" even going so far as to refute the source I gave with "something else is going on" (conspiratorial thinking) or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed.
    - marshray 4y ago
      It's a bad study and I'd be willing to tell the researchers that to their face. "Something else is going on" is not "conspiratorial thinking" when it comes to analyzing data. Systematic biases in data is the normal and expected state of affairs. > or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I didn't say your sources were "RWNG", I said the "other stuff you wrote" was. The sources could all be good, and still not actually support your conclusions. > I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter > and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed. I've been having good discussions on Twitter Spaces lately. Feel free to connect over there if you'd like to discuss this further.

rglover 4y ago

Testosterone rates are down over the last 50 years [1]. That correlates with the changes to food production to lower costs [2], [3]. Based on your "alex jones" jab, you clearly took my statement to refer to a "conspiracy," when really I attribute these changes to a combination of: 1. Financial incentives for corner-cutting which are bolstered by government policies increasing regulation (production, safety, employment, etc) [4], leading to companies having to spend more for compliance and look for ways to corner cut, with the unfortunate choice being product quality, or, increased prices. 2. The government legislating to have ever-increasing budgets for entitlement programs [5] and other superfluous spending which necessitate higher taxes (financial pressure on working class people) and money printing. These, predictably, lead to inflation which corporations combat by increasing prices and so upward mobility gets knee-capped for a large chunk of the population. On the relationships side, divorces went up significantly in the 80s and were stable until the early 2010s [6] as marriages started to decline and single parenting increased [7]. The greater point being, all of these changes can be attributed back to social changes with a root cause of government decision making. Like I said, look around. It's all there. Admittedly, it's complex and it's far too easy to take an irrational stance in the form of "it's the globalists!" but in reality, a lot of poor decision making and mismanagement in the government is the root of our woes. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063751/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063751/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20516261/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20516261/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21367944/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21367944/ [4] https://www.nahb.org/blog/2021/05/regulatory-costs-add-a-whopping-93870-to-new-home-prices/ https://www.nahb.org/blog/2021/05/regulatory-costs-add-a-who... [5] https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0027_entitlement-programs-proj https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0027_entitlement-programs... [6] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-year-low https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-... [7] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-...

marshray 4y ago
[1] Not impressed by this study of only Israeli men over 2006 to 2019. For every age range, the number of subjects went up during the study period. Overall, the study ended with about twice the number of subjects in the last period than the first. Look at Chart A. The error bars are noticeably smaller for later periods compared to the earlier periods. Something else is going on in this data that they are not accounting for. Probably some combination of either the tests were changed, or the criteria for ordering the test were loosened over the study period. The other stuff you wrote is just the same right-wing navel-gazing that I've heard over and over since the 1980's.
- rglover 4y ago
  I knew this would be your response. You met someone who doesn't capitulate to your manipulation, took the time to cite things, and you're predictably "not impressed" even going so far as to refute the source I gave with "something else is going on" (conspiratorial thinking) or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed.
  - marshray 4y ago
    It's a bad study and I'd be willing to tell the researchers that to their face. "Something else is going on" is not "conspiratorial thinking" when it comes to analyzing data. Systematic biases in data is the normal and expected state of affairs. > or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I didn't say your sources were "RWNG", I said the "other stuff you wrote" was. The sources could all be good, and still not actually support your conclusions. > I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter > and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed. I've been having good discussions on Twitter Spaces lately. Feel free to connect over there if you'd like to discuss this further.