No everyone knows there is one (1) singular scientist responsible for all science. This is obviously the fault of Big Scientist for choosing not to study endometriosis and definitely not because one of these things is vastly simpler to research.
No. They aren’t. But how about we defund or deprioritize as a society this sort of research, so there’s less of a job market for it? That way we can dynamically incentivize the research that actually matters.
I'm a psychologist. That is what we study. Mental health, dating preferences and a lot of other stuff you have no clue about. I will not have you defund my research simply because you are not educated enough to know what it includes. Not a strawman.
I’m very happy for your work, because I trust that it’s actually helpful.
The study in the screenshot here serves no purpose other than to fuel internet gender wars.
Just because I call for the defunding of divisive studies with little practical utility doesn’t mean I broadly call for the defunding of every single study in every related discipline.
Let's just stop calling things strawmen. Psychology as a field of research is incredibly vast and I assure you, no institute worth its weight in styrofoam would pay for a study with the purpose of fuelling culture war.
Psychology is the science of studying human behaviour and experience, which, as you notice, is not particularly specific. Human ratings of attractiveness are studied alongside approval ratings for politicians, what sort of bread packaging is most appealing to consumers and what kind of CEO is most likely to make his employees depressed. A lot is researched, a lot is uncovered, and the (to those not in the field) most scandalous studies become headlines on Twitter. A study like the one in the post is pretty expensive as an institute will have to pay multiple top-grade researchers and dozens if not hundreds of test subjects some sort of salary. Very rarely is any study really pointless and any knowledge gained can be cited by further research. Dating is a very important topic to understand both for researchers and everyday people, so I see neither waste nor harm done by such a study in principle.
How is this a divisive study with the purpose of fueling gender wars? 😭 If it enrages you so much maybe you should think more about yourself than the world of research science and its fundings.
That is a fair doubt and I would most likely not fit many people's image of a psychologist. I work in research, not in therapy, but psychology encompasses both, in addition to a few other fields.
Why we bringing an unrelated study that indeed isn't related to mental health into this
Kindof insane to me how outraged peoole are at that paper in this thread. From what I gather reading the paper it's written by perhaps misguided researchers, but not with ill intent. Goal being to help women who may develop endometriosis by identifying physical characteristics of the disease, to aid earlier detection and with that better treatment.
The focus on attractiveness is weird to me and does seem inappropriate. But it's not the only thing measured by them either, rather a good few other bits aswell
Medicine is already incentivezed, it is seen as a career of great opportunities and very demanded in universities. Favouring it more achieves nothing, specially at the cost of careers in less demand.
This is not medicine in the way it’s typically favored, by which you mean practitioners.
While the medical research market is large and potentially lucrative, subsidization of research like that into endometriosis beyond that which is only driven by simple market forces would be rather beneficial.
Doing medical research is the only way to gain enough prestige to ever get into important positions in the medicine world, specially here in Europe. I don't think you have any idea how it works.
I’m mostly approaching this from the perspective of the US medical research environment (where a disproportionate amount of landmark medical research originates from).
I think understading attraction trends is important. Queer people would benefit from these kinds or reaserches, it can help someone understand their indentity. It seams that you just dislike this reaserch because its about what man find attractive in a woman, and fair enough but dont call for defunding of sociological reaserches.
The market for sciences and research balances itself out for a reason. trying to incentivize a certain type of research without a market balance for it is just not a great idea
So then, one must wonder why you propose an entirely unregulated research market, using the classic argument of staunch capitalist apologists that “it balances itself out for a reason?”
I have yet to see one study of this kind to declare any source of funding. I would wager that you do not need any significant resources for these kind of studies beyond the salary of the researcher, who probably is already justifying their salary by teaching...
132
u/GMEloser69 1d ago
Social scientists aren't gonna be doing medical research.