#cynical critics

[inky-evergreen]

Made another one

[gothhabiba]

Some hints about evaluating scientific studies

Firstly, understand that something being published in a scientific journal (or an academic journal for the social sciences) does not automatically make it true. Publishers profit from publishing novel, eye-catching, surprising research, which means they are more likely to publish positive results than ones that didn't find a connection between given variables. This means that scientists' careers benefit when they get positive results. Certain institutions also benefit from certain findings above others (a committee for research on "obesity" that is funded by a government organisation tasked with ending it, for example, is likely to try to stretch the evidence to find a link between body weight and poor health outcomes). So how do people evaluate scientific studies, especially without being scientists themselves?

Literature reviews

Literature reviews, which aim to assemble and summarise most of the available or influential papers on a given issue, can be a good place to start when trying to research that issue. Typically, scientific studies shouldn't only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (since even well-designed studies can be contradicted by other, equally well-designed studies), but a full survey of the different results people have gotten should be taken.

Background information and conflicts of interest

Try to find out who funded a given study. Who published the study? What do these people stand to gain from the results of the study being accepted? (For example: you might pay special attention to the experimental design on a study on whether a certain essential oil helps to reverse hair loss that was carried out by a company that sells that oil.)

In theory, many journals call for study authors to declare any conflicts of interest they may have in a special section of the paper. This section should also list funding sources. You might also look up the authors on linkedin or something to find where they're employed; also look into whether another conglomerate owns that company, &c.

Experimental design

If the study involves a survey, have the authors of the paper provided the questions that people were asked, so that you can evaluate them for potential ambiguity or confusing wording? Not being transparent about the exact wording of questions is a sign that a study isn't trustworthy.

What's the sample size? Is it large enough for the claim the study is making to be reasonable? (More on this in the next section.)

Does the experimental design make sense with what the researchers wanted to study? Are the claims that they make in the conclusion section something that could reasonably be proven or suggested by the experiment that they performed?

Does the experimental design "bake in" an assumption of the truth of its hypothesis? (For example, measuring skeletons to argue that they fall into statistically significant size groupings by sex, using skeletons that you sorted into "male" and "female" groups based on their size, is clearly circular).

How was data collected? People might change their answers to a survey, for example, if they have to speak to a person to give them, rather than writing them down anonymously. Self-reported information (such as a survey aiming to figure out average height or average penis size) is also subject to bias. A good study should be transparent about how the authors collected their data, and be clear about how this could have affected their results.

Also regarding surveys: do the categories that the authors have divided respondents into make sense? Are these categories really mutually exclusive? If respondents were asked to sort themselves into categories (e.g., to select their own race or ethnicity), is there any guarantee that they all interpreted the question / the boundaries of these categories the same way? How would this affect the results?

Interpretation of results

Could anything other than the conclusion that the authors came to explain the results of their experiment? For example, a study finding a correlation between two variables and assuming that this means one variable causes the other ("being in a lot of stress causes short stature" or vise versa) could be missing a secret third thing which is in fact causing both of those things (e.g., poverty). Check to make sure that the authors considered other explanations for their findings and ruled them out (for example, by controlling for other variables such as socioeconomic status).

Are the results of the study generalisable to the population that the authors claim they're generalisable to? For example, the results may not be true for the entire population if only cisgender men between the ages of 30 and 40 were tested. Sampling biases can also affect generalisability—if I surveyed my college to try to find out the percentage of women in the total population, you might ask "but is your college sure to have the same percentage of women as the Earth does?"

Statistics

Are the results statistically significant, or are they within expected margins of error?

Many studies provide a p-value (a number between 0 and 1) for their results. In theory, a p-value represents the chance that the study's results could have been achieved by random chance. If you flip a coin ten times (so, your sample size is 10), it's not very odd to get heads six times and tails four times, and you wouldn't accept that as proof that the coin lands on heads more often than tails. The p-value for that result would be high (that is, there's a high chance that the coin appears unfair only because of random chance). On the other hand, if you flip a coin 100,000 times and it lands on heads 60,000 of those times, that's much better evidence that the coin is not a fair one. The p-value would be much lower. Typically, a p-value lower than 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

In practice, there's more than one way to calculate p-values, and so studies sometimes claim p-values that seem absurdly low. A low p-value is not proof of a claim in and of itself. Check to make sure that the authors of the paper also provide the raw data, and not just the p-values; this indicates a concern with other people being able to independently evaluate their results, rather than just trying to get The Best Numbers.

Citations

If the study cites something that seems foundational to their claims or interpretation, try tracing it back to the paper that was cited. Does the source actually claim what the authors of the first study said it did? Does the source provide proof or support for the claim, or does it seem flimsy, like a "common-sense" assumption?

Replication

Check the studies that cite the one you're currently looking at. Has anyone else tried to replicate the study? What were their results?

What if I really, really don't want to read scientific studies?

That's fine. Not everyone is concerned enough with specific scientific questions for regularly reading scientific papers to be reasonable for them. Just keep in mind that not everything in a scientific journal is necessarily true; that profit motives and personal and institutional bias impact results (e.g. when some studies revealed a lack of poor health outcomes for "obesity," and many scientists responded by calling it a "paradox" that needed to be "solved"); and that pop science and journalistic reporting on science are subject to distortions from the same sources.

Try finding commentators on scientific matters whose output you like, and evaluate their writing the same way you would evaluate any other critical writing.

[asha-mage]

Metaphor: reFantazio really stares you dead in the eye and says 'democracy is not some magical system that ensures moral good. Even if you could take away all the barriers and practical difficulties, even if you could guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that the entire nation voted, and the vote could not be tampered with, and that it was a genuine expression of their true belief of who was most fit to rule with no other concerns taken into consideration- that still would not keep people from elevating strongmen and demagogues and tyrants. Their is no promise that the 'will of the people' will always be the most moral, the most practical, or the most wise choice. People are short sighted and easily swayed and ruled by their biases and instincts, and more then that they often lack the time energy and understanding to make the most wise choice.'

And then as you are staring into the black void of hopelessness it keeps going and says 'And that's okay. People have lived beneath unjust, imperfect systems since the dawn of civilization. All these things, from Republics, to Theocracies, to Monarchies, to Dictatorships- they are all human creations and so reflect human flaws. It's okay. It doesn't mean you stop living, stop helping other people, stop trying to do the best for those you care for. It doesn't absolve you of your duties and responsibilities to others. Dream of a better world, and do what you can for the people you can and you might just make the world a better place, the same way everyone throughout history has- one day a time, and one choice after another.'

[aq2003]

i think it is very silly to react to dropout's response like "why were people mad, you know the cast and crew are pro palestine" yeah exactly and if they weren't i don't think attempting to push a petition/boycott to them about this would do anything. the result of them acknowledging this was a net good. twenty thousand dollars

[papayafiles]

singapore was CRAZY bc wdym carlando held off a two-pronged mercedes war machine on brand new mediums, hungry for blood, hunting them down, nipping at their heels, with nothing but 42-lap-old hards and the good old power of friendship??!

this is cinema. that is main character behavior.

[the-awful-falafel]

I really hope Rick and Morty as a series will finally move on from portraying Rick's love for Morty / his family as this special, redemptive trait that Morty just needs to open his eyes to. Or portraying it as something Rick just needs to be emotionally honest about, finally admit in a grand gesture, and then everything will be healthy and resolved.

Two things can be equally true: Rick can sincerely care about Morty, deeply enough to be tender with him, showing gestures of affection, being protective of him, being truly proud of him... and can also constantly let Morty down, put him in mortal danger, make Morty feel responsible for his emotional health, treat him awfully and in manipulative controlling ways, and not be there for him when it matters most. His love is real, but is also a fickle thing that Morty cannot always rely on. That uneven dolling out of affection is exactly what entrenches the abuse and damages Morty further. Even now that Rick is slowly improving as a person, his simultaneous love and unreliability persists in milder ways, and the long pattern of abuse leaves deep scars on his grandson.

In my opinion, it makes perfect sense for Morty to see Rick's care for him as this unreliable, dangerous, and potentially non-existent thing, but also to paradoxically crave it nonetheless. Every time he lets his guard down and starts to trust Rick too much, he's been kicked in the nuts for it to varying extents-- even recently. I don't think he actually believes Rick cares nothing for him, but he's been trapped in this cycle of good and bad for so long that his self-worth is eroded and wholly defined by his grandpa's conditional affection, and he's scared of and dependent on it simultaneously. Even if Rick became truly healthy and openly caring from now on, that won't change how he's screwed up Morty with his behavior.

The series isn't going to make any meaningful progress if the writers keeps cycling around the superficial "does Rick care? does Morty know how deeply Rick cares?" question that they've asked since Season 1, instead of progressing to more meaningful, realistic questions about what Rick's love even means after all the past seasons of codependent abuse, and how much it should be worth to Morty in the end. (Ideally, much, much less than it's worth now.)

Yes, Rick cares. Yes, he loves his family deeply. But as with many forms of abuse, that's part of the problem.

[slavicafire]

oh I am such a hater. booted it up just to make sure it works and even the title screen makes me mad. cartoony ass mobile game

[inky-evergreen]

d

DON’T FEED THE MUSE ART WITH THE CYNICAL CRITICS,,,!!!!!!!

[art under the cut because it has bright colors/eyestrain]

Hey wait a minute are those lyrics from a Lemon Demon Song called Spiral of A—FUCKING DIES

[rosesradio]

You're the only person i follow who posts about thomas sanders

And i only watch him for sanders sides, i'm not really in the fsndom online, so i guess you are the best person to ask this

Why does thomas take so long to upload new sander sides?

ten questions scientists still can't answer, anon

[vhbutter]

Bro.. Bro it’s SATIRE it’s SATIRE BRO

[inky-evergreen]

If the unlisted Cynical Critics videos where Anthony is in them where actual watchable videos it would have been cool and interesting as fuck . But sadly Alex was allergic to put any Anthony related ...sigh...😔

[inky-evergreen]

GDHDJSGDJDHSH FINALLY HE HAS SUCCUMBED TO YOUR GORGEOUS ART STYLE AAAHHGH🤩🤩🤩💕💕💕💕

guess who

[mangoob]

I wanted to draw this post from @just-some-normal-jessica

[thebookwormdaydreamer]

I think the spoilers I saw for Veilguard has solidified my decision to never play the game. What a slap to the face. Does Bioware even like or respect fans? I was willing to play it in a couple of years after the hype and outrage has died down and after my own feelings about their lack of respect for and dare I say, laziness about player choices in previous games (they were able to handle this well ten years ago but now it’s too hard for them according to defenders) But seeing what they did to previous regions in the previous games and effectively what it did to beloved characters in those regions (ineffective, incompetent, or now irrelevant) is too much for me. Forget it. I’ll look for a different series to love and content myself with three Dragon Age games.

[stromuprisahat]

Six of Crows- Chapter 26 (Leigh Bardugo)

I should make it a series- It's fascinating how I have yet to encounter enraged fans demanding Kaz to be held responsible for his reckless and selfish disregard of the people relying on him.

[adultemophase]

WAIT WHAT MEDIA ILLITERACY? ABOUT WHICH CHARACTER

Honestly not even a particular character, you could argue there’s bad takes about all of them. The most common one I’ve see is people stuck in the “protagonist = good guy and antagonist = bad guy” mindset. For example, people after season 1 came out saying Vi was a bad guy and shitty protagonist for hitting powder in episode 3 without considering the context and motivations of her character. . Or similarly, that Jinx is a bad guy because she essentially terrorizes Piltover without, again, considering context and motivation. Much like real people they both have good and bad qualities but they’re both protagonists to the story, just in different ways.

I honestly don’t care if someone doesn’t like a particular character in the show because the fun thing about nuanced characters is that they aren’t inherently likable.