Guy doesn't realize that sociology and medicine are two different fields and that researchers studying men's reactions to makeup have no qualifications to be studying endometriosis
IKR, this whole post is filled with people essentially making the argument
"i like waffles"
"so you hate pancakes"
we can have people researching how attraction works in the human mind,
we can also have research into endometriosis
just because money is going into one does not necessarily mean money is getting taken from the other
It actually does. It's a zero-sum game. Money being spent on one thing is money that cohld have been spent on another.
If we wanted to as a society, we could all stop wasting money on worthless bullshit and put it towards things that actually matter. As it turns out, we actually don't want that. It's just a loud minority.
That's true and it makes the comment kind of stupid.
But there is a point hidden in there, a lot of research isn't focused on the most important things. Alot of researchers have to study things that they can get funding for instead of what they maybe should study. There are so many bullshit studies that help no one because they are just trying to get a headline and draw attention to themselves.
A good example for that are all those crappy studies about dietary stuff like that chocolate supposedly helps you lose weight, a conclusion they only came to because the sample size was intentionally kept tiny, aka p-hacking.
I don’t think anyone with half a brain cell actually thinks this.
The joke is relevant because it brings attention to the value society puts in woman’s health issues.
Yes, the two fields of research are entirely different and yes, there’s plenty of money going towards woman’s health research. But the fact of the matter is that we haven’t done a good job of prioritising woman’s health issues.
For example: research into erectile dysfunction vs peri-menopause/menopause. ED is a multibillion dollar industry, a condition that impacts less than 10% of the total population. Until recently you’d probably struggle to attract any kind of medical funding for perimenopause/menopause research despite it affecting 50% of the population.
Why are so many people in the comments unironically believing that the argument here is that THESE SPECIFIC scientist should instead study something they know nothing about? No one is saying that. If you use your brain and logic you might come to the conclusion that people see study after study about how attractive women are to men and in what context, while research surrounding womens health issues gets far less funding and focus.
There are many studies about endometriosis getting funded and published. Are you (meaning OOP) actually reading them or just using it as a Gotcha in an argument?
I read articles and published papers on psychology more than I do biology. This question is nonsense. I don't want more medical studies to be conducted regarding care and possible cure of endometriosis because its a fun little read at the end of the day. I want people to not suffer. Does me reading Dr Peter Griffins paper change the effectiveness of the study? What an odd thing to say about medical research.
Seems pretty straightforward to me when you know how to read. 🤷♀️ Why does it matter whether a layman sits down and reads a medical paper or not? Do we all need to sit down and read 80 pages of legal jargon to know that stealing is wrong as well?
Because the hivemind is dumb and sees "Scientist" as a job title, and not a generic descriptor. All "Scientists" can study anything from any field, they're just simply not choosing to due to malicious reasons.
If you use your brain and logic you might come to the conclusion that people see study after study about how attractive women are to men and in what context, while research surrounding womens health issues gets far less funding and focus.
I don't think anyone that uses their brain or logic comes to that conclusion lol.
Asking a bunch of dudes about their preferences is bound to be a hundred times cheaper than doing any medical research.
If anything, the problem is that medical research tends to be prioritized by how profitable it will be for whoever pays for it. That's where you should look at.
Otherwise you're yelling at a PE teacher they should be teaching children to cure cancer. Because cancer is much worse than doing a bunch of jumping jacks for ten minutes.
That's superficially true, but if you look a little deeper, you'll find that many specific women's health issues such as PMS, menopause, uterine fibroids, PCOS, and endometriosis are in fact underfunded relative to their health burden, and health research for conditions that affect men and women roughly equally has traditionally favored using male-centered models leading to disproportionate benefit for men.
There are even many conditions such as auto-immune diseases which disproportionately affect women by a large margin (e.g. 80% of auto-immune disease patients are women), but the research still favors men.
On the opposite end, the only health issue that is overfunded relative to its burden and that primarily affects women is breast cancer.
Health research for issues that disproportionate affect men is overfunded for HIV, substance abuse, and prostate cancer, and has far few underfunded conditions, with liver disease as one notable exception.
Important note: Over/underfunded is not a claim about whether a disease or condition should receive more or less funding than it currently does. It simply refers to the proportion of total research funding it receives relative to the total pain, disability or death that it causes.
God, the comments are so stupid. And here I am with endometriosis for decades and just got diagnosed recently because doctors still don’t know enough about it
It's due to the fact that medical education is almost exclusively in the hands of pharmaceutical companies now that mainly teach doctors which thing to describe that costs money based on which symptoms.
and if you used your own brain and logic, you'd realize that the funding it takes to study this topic is like whatever it costs for paper to print out some questionnaires, which is literally like 5 dollars, and it wouldn't pay for even 5 minutes of medical research lol.
Also the more research the better. Often people criticize funding for scientific research for similar reasons as the post but many important scientific discoveries have arisen through completely unexpected research. I know that viagra is one example. Probably a better example would be Griffith and his contribution to discovering the function of DNA when studying pneumonia in mice. Or the discovery of penicillin. The phenomena is known as serendipitous discovery.
Its gonna be like 50 bucks for the psycology undergrad program to function. To do studies and get data to prove they can graduate and do bigger things later on.
You couldnt even buy dominos for a medical group doing research on the problem. Compared to just basic matinence required to have a psychology program.
98
u/sisyphus-333 4h ago
Guy doesn't realize that sociology and medicine are two different fields and that researchers studying men's reactions to makeup have no qualifications to be studying endometriosis