technocrit

My dad stole cable. Just continuing the family tradition.

A minoorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - Kendrick

It's pretty amazing how qbittorent is such a nice app, while something like youtube is constantly shoving ads up your butt.

If we're talking about music, go see the band and buy a shirt. That will help them like 1000000x more than paying for netflix, spotify, etc.

It's a real shame how scientific news is regularly butchered by sensational and basically wrong journalism.

Time runs faster on Mars and scientists just ~~proved it~~ provided evidence

Rampant, shitty epistemology is a huge sign that popular "science" is busted.

Celebrate solstice, y'all. Fuck the hegemonic "holidays".

https://ndncollective.org/acknowledging-the-winter-solstice-is-a-decolonial-act-for-indigenous-people/

Same way people fall into liberal mindset - endless, uncontested propaganda from schools, media, etc. You hear chunks of market ideology here and there. Takes some "econ" classes. Don't bother researching unprofitable alternatives.

For the same reason people fall into fascism.

Agreed. But I think "liberalism" is the underlying problem. Fascism is its extreme.

It's the same question as how do people fall into the "liberal" mindset?

After seeing people worship enslavers and their state... These people literally enslaved millions of people and genocided millions more. And their state continues to invade and murder people around the planet... So how do seemingly rational people accept and support this violent, racist, system that's literally destroying the planet? How can people be mad at Mao but not also every president? How do they feel complacent and self-righteous about voting for people who support genocide? The rationalizations are all over Lemmy, much more so than tankie rationalizations.

The point is that libs and tankies are basically the same thing, just worshiping a different empire. People want to feel like they're part of some global movement, regardless of whether the movement is actually evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

That's cool. It still seems sus AF for the reasons that I added to my original comment.

For example, they're discounting research based on a "publication bias" but who determines the bias? What about their own bias?

Their other tools are equally questionable: random-effects, machine learning...

Perhaps most importantly they can't undermine the results for low income groups which seem to be the most important for this type of thing:

First, the meta-analytic association between economic inequality and mental health was negative only in low-income samples. This finding was replicated using Gallup data: In low-income contexts, a one-point increase in the Gini coefficient predicted a mental-health decline equivalent to moving from the 39 th to the 50th percentile of the within-country income distribution (for details on the benchmarking procedure, see SI, p. 37). This suggests that inequality may be particularly harmful to low-income populations, possibly by undermining community cohesion70 , fostering adverse social comparison71 , or fueling perceptions of unfairness 31 . Thus, even if inequality does not noticeably affect overall population mental health, it may still exacerbate disparities between income groups 55.

And, if their study doesn't apply to low income groups, does it actually apply to like semi-low-income? They're literally pulling every trick possible to generate evidence against the (obvious) theory work, but they still can't find anything to undermine the result for poor people. For some reason they think this doesn't matter, but honestly it makes me feel like their research doesn't matter. Especially when the title of their paper omits what I consider the most important part. I guess if the title were "No meta-analytical effect of economic inequality on well-being or mental health except for poor people", then nobody would care/fund. Sensational titles get sensational funding.

Contrary to popular narratives, random-effects models showed that individuals in more unequal areas do not report lower subjective well-being

Sus.

although inequality initially seemed to undermine mental health, the publication-bias-corrected association was null

Sus.

Meta-regressions revealed that the adverse association between inequality and mental health was confined to low-income samples.

Undermines the supposed point of the article, so they bury this without elaboration.

Moreover, machine-learning analyses

Sus.

No non-paywalled means of evaluating this study. No choice but to assume every other study is more worthwhile.