anonuser123456 parent
Title does not reflect findings.
Yeah, sadly, not a lot here. I’m a fan of studies around materialism and capitalism but trying to dress up a study in neuroscience as a cultural critique comes off as disingenuous and vapid
How exactly? If there were a hypothetical study that saw that people who have been homeless, even after homelessness, suffer from more diseases related to parasites, would it be "disingenuous and vapid?" Would it be trying to dress up a study in parasitology as cultural critique?
Or, alternatively, could both poverty and homelessness be related to culture?
I mean, a study like this could deliver meaningful results, it’s just that this one doesn’t imo.
Hypothetically, studies on the biology/physiology can be very interesting, but this one comes off as a bit vapid and disingenuous because it’s not longitudinal, has a low sample size, and appears to not even attempt to measure intelligence or select to weed out bias in the sample set (e.g. find people born poor and see if they really do have cognitive impairment into adulthood by studying them over many years, not a backwards looking or self-selecting methodology such as theirs). When they say things like “individuals from lower income households” there’s clearly some “lifelong disadvantage” still in the sample set.