Normal/Abnormal?
IF, and that's a big if, you have the time to examine the bias built into trial and investigation design, . . . . .
http://jayjoseph.net/publications
Thanks for that link, it promises some interesting reading. I have seen bias before, while conducting a study of the studies that found compelling reason to enact motorcycle helmet laws, but which often had glaring errors in their conclusions, or cited conclusions of other studies where the data did not support the conclusion.
There is, in peer review literature, a logical family tree behind virtually any research which draws upon the results of other research, and within a couple of generations, conclusions may be based not so much of firsthand research, but a compilation of other research and a very small (and often narrow) sampling to validate conclusions toward which the writer was already inclined. Such bias may be present in the sampling process, rendering the result even more the product of sampling bias and intellectual inertia, rather than clean research.
We see this not just in the Climate field, particularly, but many other areas of investigation have become contaminated by such intellectual practice; possibly the product of the need/desire to reinforce (or the reluctance to go against) prior conclusions, either to expedite the award of a degree or grant, or facilitate the peer review process and become published in a publish-or-perish environment, which may have inherent bias of its own.
The less the ordinary layperson understands the particular field of endeavour, the less the results can be challenged with simple common-sense observations. Specialized nomenclature, often a specialized shorthand for more complex processes understood by those familiar with the field, can also be used to obscure simpler concepts and to cloud the understanding of the layman. That also becomes a screen for the intellectually unscrupulous to use for concealment of less scientific and more agenda driven research. The more rare or secluded the phenomenon under study, the less likely the layman is to challenge the results, simply from a lack of exposure to the phenomenon or its causative factors.
Certainly, we live in a time when science is seen not so much as that field which explains that which exists, as the justification for intrusive, oppressive, and often arbitrary regulation. That regulation not without the corrupting influence of diverting resources to the benefit of specific individuals or corporations, which may, in turn, underwrite research which is not unbiased, but which will bring them a profit. The harmony inherent in the sirens songs of wealth and power is strong motivation, motivation which may dominate over the inherent curiosity which has been the driving force in all science not directly related to military applications.
Unfortunately, what is best for some may come at an incredible cost to others, and without the fundamental moral constraints of scrupulous honesty and integrity, the use of flawed findings in order to establish anything from treatment to policy will yield less than optimal, and at times disastrous results.
In the past century, Lysenkoism, where public policy was set in a rigidly controlled environment using flawed science, cost tens of thousands of lives (perhaps low by an order of magnitude) in the Soviet Union, and that is just one example.
In this instance, attacking the very cultural norms which contribute to the safety and security of this Nation is a grievous error. It is from the same font of "toxic masculinity" (to get back on topic), that those heroes who keep our nation relatively safe, in the military, fighting fires, enforcing the law, along with those who have, by the sweat of their brow, built much of the infrastructure and done those often dirty jobs which make life go far more smoothly for those who keep more regular hours, sleep in warm beds, and never get dirt beneath their fingernails, who are often honorable in their approach to life, who have been traditionally supportive of and non violent towards the 'fair sex', who have formed the backbone of our culture with their chivalry.
Once again, those who would tear down our culture would only weaken our cohesiveness as a nation, as a people, as a culture amalgamated from the contributions of people of widely varied backgrounds who still generally share a common concept of "manhood", often one which does not approve of the "toxic" aspects of the misogynists, which can avoid being crude without being overly genteel. From a national standpoint, which would you rather defend against--a few sh*tkicking good ol' boys, or an army of "pajama types"?
The appearance of weakness can invite conflict, and that runs the gamut from individuals to nations. Let enough people give the impression that American men are pu$$ie$, and the rest of us will be forced to prove otherwise, some where, somehow, some time.
I will be boycotting Gillette and their subsidiaries. No skin off any part of me.
Although more than half of company profits are still derived from shaving equipment—the area in which the company started—Gillette has also attained the top spots worldwide in writing instruments (Paper Mate, Parker, and Waterman brands) and correction products (Liquid Paper), toothbrushes and other oral care products (Oral-B), and alkaline batteries (Duracell products, which generate almost one-fourth of company profits).
source
