RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

Google would rather talk about this, not privacy[edit]

Do we really need to reproduce clickbaity headlines here?[edit]

The article bigs posted, "Who's more compassionate, democrats or republicans?" Is a hell of a clickbait headline, that refuses to actually answer the question it presents in the body, though it takes a stab at it at the end, alleging that trump supporters aren't.

In addition to my dislike of us using clickbait headlines, I have other problems with the article in question. She links to "my research", in the summary, but her CV actually only has one paper published in a political science journal, and then she's only the second author. And that paper barely touches on compassion at all. It's measured twice on really quite old data that reflects a modern electorate in no way.

Her dissertation does a little better, but it also becomes clear, skimming it, that her MO is the equate anti-abortion rhetoric about "innocent babies" to compassion, which really really represents most of the extent of her data's backing the presence of compassion existing in republicans. To me, that's always been the thinnest veneer that immediately transitions to the far more conservative political debate of "defending" from "attackers".

Oh man, I don't even know what I'm complaining about. It's fine. There's not that much wrong, other than her hanging way too broad a conclusion on her dissertation. It's a blog post. By the original author. It's fine and I'm being a pedant. But the clickbait headline sucks, bigs. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

We need clickbaity headlines here now. Here's why[edit]

  1. 9 out of 10 clickbaity headlines are clicked annually by more people per year than 1000 kW.
  2. Clickbaity headlines are becoming surprisingly popular in China.
  3. The Silver Age of clickbait - what does it mean?
  4. What does this signature say about pictures of baby animals? 2.122.180.163 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them.[edit]

Shouldn't really come as a surprise, and yet people still remain deeply invested in the Zuckerberg ecosphere. http://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/


Delete your facebook account, you really don't need it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic blog post on school shooting shits on ADHD out of nowhere[edit]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/active-shooter-drills-erika-christakis/580426/

I think for the most part, it has a point, but there's one paragraph that completely goes into the ADHD and medications trope, and it's the worst thing in this otherwise good read. Made me stop reading for a bit.

Similarly, we expect children to match adults’ capacity to hurry or to be still for long periods of time; when they fail, we are likely to punish or medicate them. Examples abound: an epidemic of preschool expulsions, the reduction in school recess, the extraordinary pathologizing of childhood’s natural rhythms. ADHD diagnoses, which have spiked in recent years, are much more common among children who narrowly make the age cutoff for their grade than among children born just a week or so later, who must start kindergarten the following year and thus end up being the oldest in their class; this raises the question of whether we are labeling as disordered children who are merely acting their age. The same question might be asked of newer diagnoses such as sluggish cognitive tempo and sensory processing disorder. These trends are all of a piece; we’re expecting schoolchildren to act like small adults.

No... NO! This trivialization of ADHD is pure bullshit and came completely from left field. ADHD isn't just "kids being kids" and it isn't a means of "extraordinary pathologizing children's natural rhythms", (nice word choice in "extraordinary"; ADHD is a real mental disorder that entails in children truly struggling in school (with poorer grades than expected, not paying attention, not understanding directions, poor emotional control) and in turn leads to actual real life problems such as causing or aggravating anxiety problems, impeded social life, aggravating depression or suicidal thoughts, and so on; ADHD is often compounded with other disorders. What gets more on my nerves is this point is made on top of the pity-appealing moralizing about how hard kids have it and how dare we try to to medicate and "correct" them. The reality is that medication for people with ADHD are often a life-saver, and they level the playing field, as they are at a huge disadvantage. We have more ADHD diagnoses not because we try to "pathologize" children behavior but we have more awareness of a disorder that has been documented well over a century ago. This whole thing is like arguing that the existence of migraines are just "pathologizing headaches", imagine how ridiculous and short-sighted that sounds.

The Atlantic, keep your ADHD denialist shit out of this as well as your uncalled for attack on psychiatry in an article about psychology. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

ADHD is absolutely real. I was diagnosed when I was a child, and even in adulthood I still have some issue with the symptoms. However, the exact thing they describe is also bad. The fact that being less physically and mentally mature than your classmates is deemed a mental illness is a serious red flag for misdiagnosis happening. Type I and type II errors are both bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
On a broad scale, I believe there's no case of overdiagnosis of ADHD. The problem is that public perception and media reporting that ADHD is overdiagnosed is common, and there's the issue of underdiagnosis in other places. The Atlantic is feeding to this one-sided perception when it talks about it, and if it doesn't use the denialist trope of "ADHD is just pathologizing normal behavior", it comes dangerously close to it. There are problems with how ADHD is diagnosed; it's a clinical diagnosis after all, and it has fuzzy edges. There are better ways to discuss about how to deal with the fuzzy edges; there are huge downsides to both those Type I and II errors, but how The Atlantic treats it is irresponsible, by presenting it the same way as the deniers and the media does it, by exaggerating this "epidemic" of misdiagnosis and overlooking some of the more complicated parts of clinical diagnoses. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair thing to believe, but I'm not sure there's a valid way to scope the epidemiology. I wish there was. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, I'm seeing enough links in the scholarly field to suggest that there is some concern that ADHD is being over-diagnosed for certain populace / characteristics at this point. This doesn't dismiss ADHD as a real phenomenon, nor necessarily dismiss the equal possibility that ADHD might be *under-diagnosed* for certain populace at the same time. In particular there seems to be a concern that ADHD is over-diagnosed in boys and also over-diagnosed among the age pattern described in the Atlantic, but equally there is concern about ADHD being under-diagnosed in girls. As far as medication is concerned, the general pattern I'm getting is that there is some justified concern over the lack of physician time in evaluating ADHD thoroughly, and also there is concern over an overemphasis on medication over behavioral theory (the best case treatments involve some combination). So I have no problems with the Atlantic paragraph in one regard, however it is not the complete perspective of concerns in the field and IMHO is too tangential to the topic of active-shooter drills to justify inclusion.Soundwave106 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is someone getting this confused with Clogs?[edit]

Recently we've seen a bizarre article about "A Secular Case Against the Notion that Death is the End of all Experience" (which seems to be a mix of misunderstanding metaphors and tilting at a solipsistic strawman) and a rant about abortion leading to Nazi eugenics. It's offputting enough that I have ended my decade-long period of simply lurking on this site to comment on it.

Did someone post these here by mistake? — Unsigned, by: Mecharonin / talk / contribs

Maybe. It might have been snarkier if it was intended for the clogs. Sometimes people post bad blog WIGOs, no biggie. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been the one tending to the blog WIGO section recently, so they weren't put there by mistake @Mecharonin @RoninMacbeth. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 15:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

God's Not Dead take on Planned Parenthood[edit]

Are they still doing it under the team behind God is Not Dead 3? God is Not Dead 3 actually treats atheists much more fairly than in the first two. So does this make the punch at the WIGO text accurate? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I got the WIGO text directly from the linked article's opening paragraph. I trust the source, so I left that text in. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
"Gods not dead, gods not dead" I continue to insist as I shrink and transform into a atheist professor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)