3 ms·

> What are your standards for a good study, then? Prospective. For example, they decide in advance to test Ts for a randomly-selected group of men. This study

> What are your standards for a good study, then? Prospective. For example, they decide in advance to test Ts for a randomly-selected group of men. This study reads as basically "We queried our healthcare system database and made up the rules as we went along." For example: * How did they choose the date ranges 1/2006 through 3/2019? * How did they decide to divide the dates into four ranges of 4, 3, 3, and 4 years each? * Why did they include "only the first blood sample taken from each patient"? * Why were there 38,701 subjects with an age measurement but only 22,169 that recorded a BMI in 2016-9? * Why did the number of subjects double over the course of the study period? Did more patients enter the healthcare system? Did they, say, open new treatment facilities to attract different clientele? I mean, it's not worthless, it can be useful to put the data out there for meta-analysis. But on its own it should not be used to draw a conclusion. And so on. > You understand that this basically makes anything I give you a non-starter as its validity is wholly based on your opinion of it, right? You're right - it's my opinion and I do lean on my personal experience when considering others' arguments. > it's objective reality (whether you like that reality or not is irrelevant). Some of the data may reflect objective reality, but many of your conclusions do not. > Empirically, the problems you encounter today are in far greater numbers than they were in the past Yes, but this statement has been true my entire life. Everyone agrees our world gets more populous and more challenging almost every year. The statement may be true, but so broad that it conveys little meaning. > and those problems all track with decisions made in government (either directly or indirectly). This conclusion is not well supported. Try to describe how you have considered and rejected other possible explanations for the observed phenomena. > Frankly, just based on your initial response to me, I don't think a conversation would be terribly productive for either of us. Go back and read what you wrote again. You mention 'politics' and/or 'government' in every post. You cannot even discuss whether or not a hormone level is declining without fitting it within your ideological framework. Take care :-)

rglover 4y ago
> Try to describe how you have considered and rejected other possible explanations for the observed phenomena. Sure. I use abductive logic/reasoning to connect different data points (this could be a study, social trend, major event, etc) and reason out how/why that outcome might be possible (and whether or not there are any gaps/inconsistencies in that reasoning). For example, our current economic situation: massive, unpayable federal debt, rising inflation, and a serious constriction of the middle class. My first question for all of these things is "how does that happen, academically speaking?" Well, a massive unpayable debt is only achievable via government spending. Taking that a step further, how does that spending happen? Mismanaged budgets, pork barrel legislation (they just passed the "Inflation Reduction Act" which does nothing to limit inflation and only contributes to it via more spending), and increasing the money supply. If my thesis is "the government is at fault," at this point I stop and say "could anything else possibly affect these things?" If my answer is no, I continue my thinking. Next, I consider the social implications of something like this. What happens when people don't have money? First, anxiety, then, as they approach poverty: depression, anger, despair, etc. As the money supply increases, there are more dollars competing for the same resources and so prices go up (effectively devaluing the currency). This translates to more effort being required of an individual to keep up with the price increases, leading to some degree of mental pressure (doubly so if that increase is steady). If you factor in rising crime rates, well, what do people do when they're desperate for basic needs? Yep, crime. So, you're stressed out because you're working harder but not earning more, you have less money for enjoying life and instead dedicate all of your resources to needs/survival (which creates a feeling of being trapped). Eventually, all of this mental pressure starts to affect your day-to-day behavior. If you're in a relationship, that relationship will undoubtedly suffer issues. If you're strapped for cash, you won't be terribly concerned with your health and will "just eat whatever" (either because it's affordable, or, that cheap junk food is the only good feeling/dopamine you get in your day). And guess what immense amounts of stress affect? Cortisol levels. What does that affect? Hormones. So, in this one example, we've got the government's mismanagement of the economy leading to mental health problems, physical health problems, and relationship problems. To validate it, I ask "what are the inconsistencies?" In the reasoning above, there are none. You can easily trace back each of those problems to a root of poor decision making in the government. > You mention 'politics' and/or 'government' in every post. Right, because that's the discussion being had. If we were talking about oatmeal, I'd mention oatmeal in every post. This is just misdirection to try and discredit my observation of yourself.
- marshray 4y ago
  > massive, unpayable federal debt, rising inflation, and a serious constriction of the middle class I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? > If you factor in rising crime rates, well, what do people do when they're desperate for basic needs? Yep, crime. Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. Whomever is telling you that is lying to you. Stop listening to them. > So, in this one example, we've got the government's mismanagement of the economy leading to mental health problems, physical health problems, and relationship problems. This is classic begging the question. By the second sentence you have concluded that the government spending is the source of all woes and use the rest of your post explaining again why you believe everything is the government's fault. You are unable to consider other possible explanations. Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government.
  - rglover 4y ago
    > I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? Right, because the problem accelerated when we unpinned from the gold standard. What's different is that the current balance is upwards of 31T dollars. Purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is down significantly from the 70s. > Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. They were. And then all of a sudden, they're on the rise again [1]. What might have caused that? Forcing people to stay in their homes, shutter their businesses (leading to employees being laid off), and lose their livelihoods. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myth... (see: "Socioeconomic Instability and Disruptions to Community Life") > You are unable to consider other possible explanations. I'm not unable, there are just none that make as much sense. I can throw the same back at you and say that you're unable to consider that government is causing these problems (at the root, meaning direct or indirect). Can you tell me why they're not? > Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government. Did I say only? No, but in that specific example, it's easily ID'd as a root issue. That's the point of that type of reasoning. I have a hypothesis, does the logic supporting that hypothesis track all the way from the root to the effect and back. If so, I trust it (not in an absolute sense, but enough that I can quickly identify other outcomes as being descendant from that). I can certainly find other fringe causes, but if I had to pick out "the one," it'd be the government, nearly every single time.

rglover 4y ago

> Try to describe how you have considered and rejected other possible explanations for the observed phenomena. Sure. I use abductive logic/reasoning to connect different data points (this could be a study, social trend, major event, etc) and reason out how/why that outcome might be possible (and whether or not there are any gaps/inconsistencies in that reasoning). For example, our current economic situation: massive, unpayable federal debt, rising inflation, and a serious constriction of the middle class. My first question for all of these things is "how does that happen, academically speaking?" Well, a massive unpayable debt is only achievable via government spending. Taking that a step further, how does that spending happen? Mismanaged budgets, pork barrel legislation (they just passed the "Inflation Reduction Act" which does nothing to limit inflation and only contributes to it via more spending), and increasing the money supply. If my thesis is "the government is at fault," at this point I stop and say "could anything else possibly affect these things?" If my answer is no, I continue my thinking. Next, I consider the social implications of something like this. What happens when people don't have money? First, anxiety, then, as they approach poverty: depression, anger, despair, etc. As the money supply increases, there are more dollars competing for the same resources and so prices go up (effectively devaluing the currency). This translates to more effort being required of an individual to keep up with the price increases, leading to some degree of mental pressure (doubly so if that increase is steady). If you factor in rising crime rates, well, what do people do when they're desperate for basic needs? Yep, crime. So, you're stressed out because you're working harder but not earning more, you have less money for enjoying life and instead dedicate all of your resources to needs/survival (which creates a feeling of being trapped). Eventually, all of this mental pressure starts to affect your day-to-day behavior. If you're in a relationship, that relationship will undoubtedly suffer issues. If you're strapped for cash, you won't be terribly concerned with your health and will "just eat whatever" (either because it's affordable, or, that cheap junk food is the only good feeling/dopamine you get in your day). And guess what immense amounts of stress affect? Cortisol levels. What does that affect? Hormones. So, in this one example, we've got the government's mismanagement of the economy leading to mental health problems, physical health problems, and relationship problems. To validate it, I ask "what are the inconsistencies?" In the reasoning above, there are none. You can easily trace back each of those problems to a root of poor decision making in the government. > You mention 'politics' and/or 'government' in every post. Right, because that's the discussion being had. If we were talking about oatmeal, I'd mention oatmeal in every post. This is just misdirection to try and discredit my observation of yourself.

marshray 4y ago
> massive, unpayable federal debt, rising inflation, and a serious constriction of the middle class I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? > If you factor in rising crime rates, well, what do people do when they're desperate for basic needs? Yep, crime. Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. Whomever is telling you that is lying to you. Stop listening to them. > So, in this one example, we've got the government's mismanagement of the economy leading to mental health problems, physical health problems, and relationship problems. This is classic begging the question. By the second sentence you have concluded that the government spending is the source of all woes and use the rest of your post explaining again why you believe everything is the government's fault. You are unable to consider other possible explanations. Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government.
- rglover 4y ago
  > I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? Right, because the problem accelerated when we unpinned from the gold standard. What's different is that the current balance is upwards of 31T dollars. Purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is down significantly from the 70s. > Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. They were. And then all of a sudden, they're on the rise again [1]. What might have caused that? Forcing people to stay in their homes, shutter their businesses (leading to employees being laid off), and lose their livelihoods. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myth... (see: "Socioeconomic Instability and Disruptions to Community Life") > You are unable to consider other possible explanations. I'm not unable, there are just none that make as much sense. I can throw the same back at you and say that you're unable to consider that government is causing these problems (at the root, meaning direct or indirect). Can you tell me why they're not? > Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government. Did I say only? No, but in that specific example, it's easily ID'd as a root issue. That's the point of that type of reasoning. I have a hypothesis, does the logic supporting that hypothesis track all the way from the root to the effect and back. If so, I trust it (not in an absolute sense, but enough that I can quickly identify other outcomes as being descendant from that). I can certainly find other fringe causes, but if I had to pick out "the one," it'd be the government, nearly every single time.