#cultural homeopathy

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: David Millard Haskell

Published: Feb 15, 2024

Almost two months ago, Tesla CEO and Twitter (now X) owner Elon Musk, made critical statements on X about the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In a post that’s now been viewed nearly 36 million times, Musk stated “DEI must DIE. The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.”

Recently, Musk showed he was willing to do his part to hasten DEI’s demise. In its official filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Tesla did a clean sweep of DEI language and references to DEI initiatives. The world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer is now DEI-free.

Musk’s comment and related actions reflect a growing consensus that DEI ideology and instruction—educational materials steeped in critical social justice and offered as mandatory training by most corporations, educational systems and government agencies—does not work.

That is, it fails to deliver on its promise to reduce prejudice and produce greater harmony among groups. Ironically, as Musk observes, it appears to promote the divisive concept popularized by self-proclaimed “anti-racism” scholar and DEI guru, Ibram X. Kendi, that “the only solution to past discrimination is present discrimination.”

In the US, several high-profile controversies have further solidified the connection between questionable concepts (like Kendi’s) promoted in DEI training and reverse discrimination against Caucasians as well as academically successful Asians, and Israel-supporting Jews.

There have been similar DEI-influenced controversies in Canada. The suicide of Toronto public school principal Richard Bilkszto awakened many to the destructive nature of this caustic curriculum. When announcing his death, Bilkszto’s lawyer traced his deteriorating mental health and ultimate demise to a series of diversity, equity and inclusion workshops he had attended. (The allegations have not yet been proven in court.)

Recordings show that Bilkszto was subjected to repeat harassment and humiliation based on his skin colour after he politely questioned the DEI trainer about one of her claims.

Shortly after Bilkszto’s death in July of 2023, the trainer in question, Kiki Ojo-Thompson, released a statement on the website of her consulting company, the KOJO Institute. It said: “This incident is being weaponized to discredit and suppress the work of everyone committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion” which is “building a better society for everyone.”

But is it true that the concepts and training of DEI builds “a better society for everyone?”

This was a question that the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy asked me to answer. To do that I examined the findings of the most significant DEI studies from recent decades published in top social scientific journals like the Annual Review of Psychology, Anthropology Now, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Psychological Science, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Authors of the reviewed literature are from various universities including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Syracuse, Aberdeen and others.

What the research shows is surprising—for some. For example, claims that “DEI works!” are not supported; multiple meta-analyses of hundreds of studies could not discern any clear evidence that DEI instruction changes people’s attitudes for the better.

In one particularly damning analysis, the researchers concluded “Implementation of DT [Diversity Training] has clearly outpaced the available evidence that such programs are effective in achieving their goals.”

On the other hand, the research provides clear proof: DEI instruction can activate and even increase bigotry among participants.

You’d think that such a conclusion would cause our corporate, academic, and political leaders to immediately withdraw the millions they’re spending on DEI programs and DEI staff. But old habits die hard, especially when those enforcing the habits have to admit that they’ve been hoodwinked.

The practice of blood-letting lasted more than one thousand years and only began to fall out of fashion in the mid-1800s when a Parisian physician, Pierre Louis, finally decided to measure patient outcomes. To his surprise, the application of leeches to a person’s back or the cutting and draining of the vein at their elbow didn’t do anything positive and could make matters worse.

We now can say the same about DEI.

History is riddled with instances of scholarship exposed as snake oil. Let’s learn our lesson: In the absence of evidence, you need to throw out the leeches.

David Millard Haskell is the author of “What DEI research concludes about diversity training: It is divisive, counter-productive, and unnecessary.” He is a professor and researcher at Wilfrid Laurier University and a Senior Fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. 

--

By: David Millard Haskell

Published: Feb 12, 2024

Introduction

In July 2023, public school principal Richard Bilkszto killed himself. When announcing his death, Bilkszto’s lawyer traced his deteriorating mental health and ultimate demise to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) workshops his school board required him to attend.1 Recordings show that he was harassed and humiliated by the DEI trainer for questioning one of her claims.2

A growing number of high-profile cases suggest that diversity workshops and their supporting materials regularly promote questionable claims—particularly about the overarching, malicious character of the majority population.3 Similarly, hostility toward those who challenge DEI claims is part of the pattern.4 In Canada, students who challenge claims have been punished or expelled5; employees have been suspended.6 One whistleblower who leaked DEI training session material maligning the majority population lost his employment.7

While the hostility Bilszto was subjected to during his DEI training is not unusual, his extreme response to it is an outlier. But it also sounds an alarm. It draws our attention to the potentially negative nature of this instruction that is now ubiquitously conducted— usually as a mandatory exercise—in most corporations, educational systems, and government agencies.

The DEI training that Bilkszto attended focused heavily on race; this is typical. While DEI instruction can be as varied as it is pervasive, so-called “anti-racism education” tends to get the most attention during workshops.

Supporters justify DEI training—in particular, the “anti-racist” variety—with the argument that Canada, and Western nations generally, are systemically racist. The logic is this: the medicine must be applied everywhere because the disease is everywhere.

Specifically, DEI advocates assert that discrimination against minorities, while not explicit, is embedded in society’s institutions, and therefore leads to disparities. They hold up any difference in outcomes between the country’s majority and minority populations— at least when they skew negatively for the minority—as obvious proof of systemic racism.8

However, a rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis leads to the conclusion that it is in fact not “obvious” that differences in outcomes between racial and ethnic cohorts are evidence of racism; correlation does not equal causation. In fact, in his recent Reality Check on systemic racism claims in Canada, the Aristotle Foundation’s Matthew Lau evaluates the empirical data and comes to this conclusion:

If the typical anti-racism activist in Canada today is looking for widespread institutional or systemic racism… they will not find it. …Moreover, the data on disparities in income, educational attainment, occupational outcomes, and public school test scores show that, on average, Asians are doing better than the white population.9

Operating under the assumption that society is overrun with intolerance, the expressed goal in DEI workshops is to generate harmony amongst diverse populations. To that end, independent consultants or in-house DEI staff lead participants through a curriculum focusing on such concepts as implicit bias, white privilege, and micro-aggressions.

With reference to the existing scholarship, this Reality Check investigates whether diversity, equity, and inclusion instruction actually leads to greater harmony and tolerance—or to the opposite. As we will see, the national and international research10 shows there is often a disconnect between the evidence and the claims of DEI advocates. (See the appendix table for a short summary of the literature on DEI instruction.)

Diversity training in practice: Aggressive, and justified by circular “proofs”

To “prove” the effectiveness of DEI instruction, proponents often point to surveys conducted before and after workshops that show, following training, participants are much more likely to articulate answers that align with the pro-DEI ideas. That is to say, someone who takes the training can, afterwards, recite what they were told. In these testimonials it is seldom mentioned that for many participants job security and career advancement is contingent on giving the “right” answers.11

This type of methodology has drawn criticism and has proven to be unreliable. In a 2022 article, after reviewing the scholarly literature on DEI instruction, psychological researchers Patricia Devine and Tory Ash concluded that scholars of diversity training “too often use proxy measures for success that are far removed from the types of consequential outcomes that reflect the purported goals of such trainings.”12

A disconnect between DEI claims and DEI outcomes: A look at the literature

Despite criticism of their methods, proponents of DEI instruction continue to assert that it is effective. “Effective,” for them, means more than just reciting talking points from a workshop, they claim that their programs actually change behaviour. Websites and public documents from independent DEI consultants and in-house DEI office staff promise that because of their instruction, workplace harmony, productivity, and collaboration across groups will increase, discrimination will be reduced, and bias and bigotry will be lessened.13

However, the research does not support claims of behavioural change. For example, in their 2018 article “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work?” published in Anthropology Now, Harvard Sociologist Frank Dobbin and colleague Alexandra Kalev observed:

Nearly all Fortune 500 companies do training, and two thirds of colleges and universities have training for faculty according to our 2016 survey of 670 schools. Most also put freshmen through some sort of diversity session as part of orientation. Yet hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that antibias training does not reduce bias, alter behaviour or change the workplace.14 Supporting Dobbin and Kalev’s observation, numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses—an advanced research method that combines the data of multiple studies to identify overall trends—have determined that the ability of DEI training to elevate harmony and/or decrease prejudice (in any lasting way) is undetectable or negligible.15 Those systematic reviews and meta-analyses are cited in this paper’s endnotes; however, for the purpose of illustration, the key findings of some of the most significant and representative works are discussed below.

In a review of all available research between 2003 and 2008 focusing on the impact of DEI programs, Elizabeth Paluck, then at Harvard and now at Princeton, and Donald Green at Yale generated a sample of 985 studies. After aggregate, statistical assessment they concluded:

… the causal effects of many widespread prejudice-reduction interventions, such as workplace diversity training and media campaigns, remain unknown… Due to weaknesses in the internal and external validity of existing research, the literature does not reveal whether, when, and why interventions reduce prejudice in the world.16

Updating her research in 2021 with a second meta-analysis of over 400 current studies, Paluck and colleagues again found little evidence that instruction in diversity, equity, and inclusion works to decrease prejudice. They begin by stating: “Although these studies report optimistic conclusions, we identify troubling indications of publication bias that may exaggerate effects.”17

They then clarify what they mean by “exaggerate effects.” When examined through the lens of their rigorous methodology, Paluck and team found that the effect size of diversity-type training is near zero. This is of consequence because effect size measures the difference between those who participated in the training and those who did not. DEI proponents say their training makes a difference; the research disagrees. Importantly, the effect size (minimal as it was) decreased as the academic rigour of the study increased (e.g., as the sample size became larger).18

In their 2022 meta-analysis, Divine and Ash uphold the findings of Paluck and others writing:

Our primary conclusion following our review of the recent literature echoes that of scholars who conducted reviews of the DT [Diversity Training] literature in the past. Despite multidisciplinary endorsement of the practice of DT, we are far from being able to derive clear and decisive conclusions about what fosters inclusivity and promotes diversity within organizations. Implementation of DT has clearly outpaced the available evidence that such programs are effective in achieving their goals.19

Contributing to the muted outcomes of DEI programs, the meta-analyses repeatedly observe that even when diversity-type training seems to produce a measurable, positive effect, that effect tends not be enduring. Negative stereotypes and prejudices that appear to decrease immediately following a DEI workshop typically re-emerge when evaluated a few weeks or months later.20

DEI does have an impact… but it’s not positive

While the “good” of DEI training remains elusive, the harms associated with such instruction are less equivocal.

DEI instruction has been shown to increase prejudice and activate bigotry among participants by bringing existing stereotypes to the top of their minds or by implanting new biases they had not previously held. Reviewing the related findings of past research, Dobbin and Kalev state: “Field and laboratory studies find that asking people to suppress stereotypes tends to reinforce them—making them more cognitively accessible to people.”21

For example, in a laboratory setting, a University of Toronto research team led by Lisa Legault (now at Clarkson University) determined that race-focused DEI campaigns that exert strong pressure on people to be non-prejudiced backfired, yielding heightened levels of bigotry.22

Similarly, for their landmark paper “Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound,” the University of Aberdeen’s Neil Macrae and colleagues conducted experiments measuring the outcomes of DEI-type training that, like Legault et al., asked participants to reject prejudicial stereotypes. They confirmed that in trying to suppress bigotry, DEI-type training can activate it:

Indeed, this work suggests that when people attempt to suppress unwanted thoughts, these thoughts are likely to subsequently reappear with even greater insistence than if they had never been suppressed (i.e., a “rebound” effect). … The results provide strong support for the existence of this effect… stereotype suppressors [those told to suppress their bias] responded more pejoratively to a stereotyped target on a range of dependent measures.23

Simply put, numerous studies show that when DEI-type workshop leaders instruct participants to suppress their biases—be they existing or newly implanted—many will cling to them more tightly and mentally generate additional justifications for their presence.24

The language and practice of division: DEI’s inequitable treatment and impact

While DEI-type instruction can activate prejudice in individuals of any race, in its ability to produce feelings of isolation and demoralization, it has a singular effect on the majority population.25 In his article “Diversity-related training: What is it good for?” Columbia University sociologist and research fellow Musa al-Gharbi summarizes the findings on that phenomenon:

Diversity-related training programs often depict people from historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups as important and worthwhile, celebrating their heritage and culture, while criticizing the dominant culture as fundamentally depraved (racist, sexist, sadistic, etc.) … In short, there is a clear double-standard in many of these programs… The result is that many members from the dominant group walk away from the training believing that themselves, their culture, their perspectives and interests are not valued at the institution—certainly not as much as those of minority team members—reducing their morale and productivity. … The training also leads many to believe that they have to “walk on eggshells” when engaging with members of minority populations…. As a result, members of the dominant group become less likely to try to build relationships or collaborate with people from minority populations.26

Illustrating al-Gharbi’s point that DEI instruction can lead participants to perceive the majority population less sympathetically, researcher Erin Cooley at New York’s Colgate University and her team found that teaching students about white privilege, a core component of the DEI curriculum, does not make them feel more compassion toward poor people of colour but can “reduce sympathy [and] increase blame… for White people struggling with poverty.”27

To al-Gharbi’s point that such instruction hinders unity, a 2022 study from the University of Michigan analyzed online discussions and found that mention of white privilege made even previously “supportive whites” less supportive of racially progressive policies, less engaged in group discussions, and “led to less constructive responses from whites and non-whites.”28

While the Caucasian majority is typically the focus of contempt in DEI instruction, leaving them feeling isolated and demoralized, increasingly participants of Asian ethnicity are also being targeted. In achieving, on average, greater salary and educational outcomes than the majority population (as Matthew “DEI instruction has been shown to increase prejudice and activate bigotry among participants by bringing existing stereotypes to the top of their minds or by implanting new biases they had not previously held.” What DEI research concludes about diversity training Lau showed in his Reality Check),29 this community presents a problem to the major claim of DEI instruction that skin colour or ethnicity matters most for success.

The solution that some DEI advocates have adopted is to deny that Asians qualify as visible minorities. They claim that having outcomes similar to the majority population puts one in the majority population and excludes one from being a “person of colour.”30 Borrowing ideas from academic race studies,31 some DEI proponents have begun to refer to Asians as “white adjacent” (or near white) and have accused them of perpetuating “white supremacy.”32 On the extreme end, certain school boards in the United States have gone so far as to remove the category “Asian” from student profiles, lumping anyone of Asian ancestry into the “White” category.33

Beyond denying minority status to those of Asian ancestry, the current trend among DEI consultants and departments is to weight the scales against them (a move reminiscent of the institutional racism they faced in some Western countries during the 19th and early 20th century34). Nowhere has this been more obvious than in college admissions in the US. Striking evidence shows that, for the benefit of diversity and inclusion, Asian students are being excluded from some of America’s most elite universities.35

Specifically, submissions before the US Supreme Court disclosed that when applying to Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and other universities, students of Asian descent are required to hold entrance exam scores “450 points higher than black [students]… to have the same chance of admission.”36 Thus, out of a possible score of 1600 for combined math and verbal skills on the SAT, Asian students need to be nearly perfect.37

Such universities justify their unequal standards for admission by citing their commitment to a core notion of DEI instruction: “Diversity is our strength.” They note that without intervention, the proportion of Asian students would skyrocket leaving less room for other visible minorities. That is, there would be “diversity” but not the right type of diversity. Therefore, to achieve the right outcomes, criteria other than academic merit need to be implemented.38

In the US, these unequal standards have been successfully challenged. In summer of 2023, citing violations of America’s Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights law, the Supreme Court ruled that universities cannot discriminate by race when making admission decisions.39

Canada has no such legislation; in fact, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms40 and our human rights laws41 allow for discrimination against the majority population. This constitutional allowance has now resulted in employment postings that, in the name of DEI, explicitly promote reverse or “recycled racism.”42

Conclusion

While job candidates not categorized as a minority are increasingly prevented from applying for certain employment openings, the research shows that a reputation for promoting DEI can more generally affect job applications to an organization. Specifically, findings reveal that some Caucasian candidates perceive organizations that heavily promote messages of diversity and inclusion as potentially discriminatory work environments.43

DEI’s negative perception extends beyond potential job candidates. Two-thirds of human resource specialists—those in charge of overseeing DEI initiatives—report that diversity training does not have positive effects.44 Interestingly, both the research into DEI and the majority of those involved in such training have arrived at the same conclusion: when it comes to harmony and tolerance, DEI does not make things better, but it can make things worse.

==

It's time to start talking about DEI the same way we talk about homeopathy. It's fake, it's unscientific, it's not based on evidence, and not only doesn't work, it makes things worse.

In the case of DEI, this is not a bug, it's a feature.

Marx was frustrated that he could not get the proletariat to rise up against the bourgeoisie, because they were comfortable, especially with the free market producing inexpensive items of comfort.

DEI's objective isn't to unify, it's explicitly to divide, to agitate for "liberation," a violent revolution in which liberal secular society is torn down. Those designated "oppressed" are supposed to come out feeling paranoid and persecuted, and those designated "oppressors" are supposed to come out feeling guilty and shamed. Because then the expectation is they'll both work together to destroy society and replace it with a Maoist, Leninist "utopia." The kind that killed millions.

[tiktok-singularity]

Do you have that dry cough we’ve all been getting since October 2023?! This is for you 😷🤒

[storm-of-feathers]

one of these days i am going to truly and really have a bitch explosion ab how the conversation around cultural appropriation has been basically fucking stolen from black and indigenous communities.

[whatdoeschronicevenmean]

The tension between

Knowing that regulatory bodies and institutions in healthcare normalize and pathologize certain behaviors, bodies, beliefs, and environments according to principles of risk control, reify certain expertises and knowledges that often flow hegemonically, and seek to manage populations and people according to pre-established values

Versus

Knowing that unregulated healthcare does much of the same but according to reactionary principles/cults of personality, and offers more freedom to scams and less opportunity for those seeking repair/justice.

[moonchild033]

Astro Observations -2💅

Here we go with Part-2!!!✨

(These observations are for sidereal, whole sign system based charts and all of these are subject to change with other factors in the chart, don't conclude anything from a single placement.)

12H lord in 3H- If you do second marriage or in your second serious long-term relationship, you would've spent loads of money (almost more than your capacity) for the partner. 🤑

Aquarius ascendant in D9- Your inner self yearns to get recognized for the work you do, you would NOT be one of the people who don't care about the outcomes or rewards and just continues their work everyday.🙂

Pisces ascendant in D9- No matter how much you earn, you can't save as you might have a tendency to spend a lot.💸

Enemy Mahadashas (Major planetary period) should NOT be matched during the wedding. (ie.)Your mahadasha planet should NOT be an enemy planet for your partner's mahadasha planet and vice versa.😌

In a woman's chart, if you have Venus/Jupiter in conjunction with Mars in your 10H, your spouse could be an ideal husband, 10000 marks for being a good provider and pampering you. 💖

Sun-mars conjunction or both planets in the same degree- Siblings get more attention from your father than you.😒

Rahu Mahadasha= Good for love marriages, especially weddings outside your own community/culture/race etc. Arranged marriages can be avoided during this period as there could be high chances of getting deceived. 🤫

Ascendant lord and 7H lord placed in the next house to each other or in the same house- Understanding between you and your spouse will be great. You just seem to get each other and gel so easily. GREEN FLAG!🤩

Virgo ascendant in D9- The type of people to opt for alternative medicine. If everyone goes for allopathy, they would prefer to get treatment in Homeopathy, Ayurveda etc.😷

Capricorn ascendant in D9- For some people with this placement, Someone very close to them would've passed away during their childhood or early teens and it would stay like a distant memory inside them always, they would've been affected so much and their personality would've evolved drastically after the incident.��

SECRET TIP- Starting a business/marrying/dating long-term a person with the rising sign of your ascendant lord's exaltation sign will help in putting your dreams into reality, it's a lucky charm. Ex. If you are a leo rising, your ascendant lord sun gets exalted in Aries, so you could start a business or get into a long term relationship with a person having Aries rising, this will speed up your progress in life.💥💣

Placements who should STOP planning everything in their life, as things wouldn't work out for them if they plan. These folks especially should take it easy and go in the river's direction to experience success, because Rahu in these placements would create an opposite plan to yours and leave you speechless lol, Saturn as usual would cause delays but MORE delays if you have these placements and tend to plan everything 🙊💯-

Rahu in 1H

Ascendant lord in Shatabisha, Ardra or Swati

The house lord of Rahu's placement is exalted or in his own house. Ex. Rahu is in Aries (House lord is mars) and Mars is in Capricorn (exaltation) or in Aries/Scorpio(own houses).

Rahu in Scorpio

Saturn in 1H/7H

Saturn in Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius

Undergoing Rahu/Saturn Mahadasha (Major planetary period)

(If you notice, these are the placements where these two malefics get powerful, so it's better to go with the flow and enjoy the unexpected successes on the way rather than stressing out on plan failures.)

Let's Learn and Grow Together!💋💅

With Love- Yashi ❤⚡

Here's my Masterlist if you want to explore other astro content from me, hope you have a good read! 💪😸

[jovial-thunder]

Last (?) sticker design for the Lancer Tactics Kickstarter, this time IPS-Northstar gets a turn: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wickworks/lancer-tactics/posts/3764404

It's based on the guidestone from Homeworld; a spiral galaxy that evokes a whirlpool/ocean with nautical map on top. The logo is positioned at space-north to reinforce the "Northstar" theme, and the font (Goldman) has a passing similarity to the "worm" NASA logo (look at the S). I originally was thinking the whole thing could represent blinkgates before I realized that the locations of Lancer are entirely contained in the Orion arm. Since we can't have a galaxy-spanning subway map, I guess I gotta put a "for navigational and/or informational purposes only" disclaimer on it like it's in the homeopathy section of a supermarket.

The story in my head about this one is that some designer at IPS-N was tasked with mapping their logo onto the heavens by making a star chart that emphasizes relationships between stars to mimic the shape of the IPS-N compass. It also undertakes subtle cultural warfare by placing Cradle at the center of the galaxy by putting everything in relation to it; the Karrakin Trade Barony does not approve.

I'm super happy with how this one has turned out, though it took several times longer to get right than the previous stickers. 😅

[woodsdyke]

my most recent skill is getting people to listen to my favorite weird sort-of political podcasts. im annoying enough on instagram that at least 2 people have told me they started listening to:

-maintenance phase (health misinfo debunking/diet culture)

-conspirituality (about the intersection of new age spirituality and right wing conspiracy theories)

-you're wrong about (stuff that you got the Wrong Story On. the mcdonalds hot coffee case, homosexuality in animals, the satanic panic. etc)

-books that kill (analyses of fucked up pop psych and political books and why they're absolutely wild)

and im telling u: go listen to these. conspirituality gets into some more theory heavy territory but is still lay person accessible and they once talked about whether homeopathy was vegan for 15 minutes. tws for all sorts of bad shit but everything is fully transparent at the beginnings of the eps or in the show notes

also runner up shoutout to life after MLM I just started listening but it's really good

[jakethesequel]

There aren't enough cool new myths and legends anymore. It's all racist, ignorant, antisemitic conspiracy theories; or else it's twee liberal homeopathy methods and divination taken from New Age spirituality but somehow even more culturally hegemonic "use crystals to get healthy and you'll see much success at your job that doesn't pay for healthcare!" If you're going to have eclectic and improbable beliefs at least let them be interesting. Believe in gnomes or vampires or something cool like that. At least the UFO guys have something unique going on

[demi-shoggoth]

2023 Reading Log, pt 13

I've been putting off writing this one for a while, because all of these books are... fine? I didn't feel very strongly about them any way, either positively or negatively. Plus, I've been strongly burnt out on writing in general, and it's been hard for me to push myself to even write little 100 word blurbs about books.

61. Strange Japanese Yokai by Kenji Murakami, translated by Zack Davisson. It’s rare that I get the opportunity to read a yokai book originally written in Japanese, seeing as I don’t speak the language, so I jumped on the chance to get a copy of this when I found out it existed. It’s cute, with cartoony artwork and little data file sidebars that remind me of a Scholastic book… except the content is far weirder than what American kids books contain. The theme of the yokai stories here is that a lot of yokai… kind of suck. The stories told about the big hitters, like oni, kappa, kitsune and tanuki, are about them being foolish or having easily exploited weaknesses, and a lot of the other stories are about gross or pathetic yokai more than scary or impressive ones. The book is overall charming, but a very quick read. More of a supplement to other yokai books than a one-stop shop.

62. Mythical Creatures of Maine by Christopher Packard. This is a bit of an odd duck, seeing as it combines multiple monster traditions (fearsome critters, cryptids and Native American lore) under the same set of covers. It’s a pretty typical A-Z monster book, with some good information about obscure fearsome critters and Wabanaki monsters. There are, however, two things about the book I actively dislike, that keep me from strongly recommending it. The art is terrible. The illustrations by Dan Kirchoff are done in a style I can only describe as “fake woodcuts with flat colors” and are ugly (and in some cases, difficult to decipher). The other is that most, but not all of the monsters, get little microfiction epigrams in the character of Burton Marlborough Packard, the author’s great-great grandfather who worked in the Maine lumberwoods. It’s a weird touch, especially since the epigrams are only a sentence or two, and are typically pretty pointless.

63. Mushrooms: A Natural and Cultural History by Nicholas P. Money. There have been a number of books about fungi for the educated lay audience that have been published in the last couple of years. This one doesn’t really stand out from the crowd. The photography is nice, and there’s some coverage of the history of mycology and some of the prominent people in the field. But the book isn’t very well organized, bouncing from one topic to another within the same paragraph, and there are a number of passages that feel more like rants (the chapter on culinary uses for mushrooms, for example).

64. The Lives of Beetles by Arthur V. Evans. This book serves as an introduction to entomology in general, and beetles in particular. It covers core topics like insect body plans, introduces cladistics and covers the evolution, ecology, behavior and conservation of beetles in broad strokes. These strokes feel particularly broad because there are a lot of beetles; much of the book covers groups on the levels of family, which makes it feel a little bit shallow. These are alternated with descriptions of individual species, and this is where the book shines, as it gives good information about both well known species and some pretty obscure ones. The real value of the book, to someone who has been around the entomological block as I have, is in its production values—this book is quite simply gorgeous, and there are lots of nice photos of many different species.

65. Hoax: A History of Deception by Ian Tattersall and Peter Névraumont. This book has an identity crisis. You would think, with a title like that, that the main topic would be about hoaxes and cons. Some of it is. Some of it is about people who believed what they were pushing, even if it wasn’t true (apocalypse prophecies, homeopathy). Some of it is about misconceptions in archaeology, even if nobody was intentionally lying (the Piltdown Man is an actual hoax. Mary Leakey misidentifying rocks as human artifacts isn’t). And the organization is frankly baffling—it’s arranged in chronological order for some part of a topic, regardless of how much of the chapter is actually about when it’s set. For example, a chapter on fixed games is set at 260 BCE, but spends more of its length talking about modern pro wrestling than gladiator matches. The book is a somewhat bizarre reading experience.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Do you know why Indians in particular (and I suppose, new age spiritualists) believe in things like homeopathy or ayurveda(like ashwagandha)? I've always found it so odd, even growing up in india. It's clear that some of these beliefs are marketing schemes, like saying A2 (Indian cows) milk > A1(foreign cows) to the point that they sell A2 cow milk and butter at 10x-20x the price of A1 cow milk. All because of "Vedic" practices (prayers and conducting rituals) of cow rearing. We know that ayurveda especially has no clinical or empirical evidence. It's all anecdotal. But even I was taught to believe that turmeric is a good antioxidant and is great for colds. In reality, only about 2% of turmeric is absorbed by your body. Are indians just more gullible because of Hinduism or is it just willful ignorance because they want to feel some sort of superiority in their spirituality?

Lots of love, thank you for continuing to post!! 💛💛 Hope you're doing well.

A big chunk of it may well be the lack of penetration of criticism and mockery of these superstitions, both for cultural and language reasons.

There's a saying that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." This isn't literally true, it's a metaphor for the notion that exposing ideas to the light of scrutiny, examination and refutation helps to break down and destroy false or bad ideas.

To some extent, the persistence of these superstitions may be that they've not been well exposed to public view to the extent many others have been.

Islam has in its doctrine, the curative and medicinal properties of camel urine. To the extent it's packaged and sold as medicine in the present day solely because in multiple hadiths, Muhammad prescribed camel urine for ailments. People don't know about this, don't believe it or start making excuses about "natural remedies" and the limitations of "western medicine." Even while the World Health Organization calls for people to stop drinking it.

Outside India, there's a certain anti-western chauvinism, coupled with a fetishization of "exotic" cultures. Which is really just the Appeal to Nature and Appeal to Tradition fallacies. But are ripe to be exploited by con artists (e.g. Deepak Chopra) for sale to the credulous who mistake their trendy credulity for "open mindedness." Even though the same people would never be so gullible about superstitions based on Xian mythology.

What this means is that a protective bubble forms around these superstitions because attacking primitive, superstitious nonsense hogwash becomes a "racist" attack on a "culture." You're allowed to - and encouraged to - criticize and attack Xian faith-healing, but not Hindu faith-healing because that's just intolerant of a "culture." Note that this means they want Indian culture to be mired in primitive superstitions.

Internal to India, I think a big part is just that it's so dominant and there isn't the tradition of secularism - separation of church/religion and state - which means religious faith holds more sway. Coupled with more explicit moves in recent years to mirror Islam in offence and fragility regarding "blasphemy" - see the whole "Sexy Kali" thing, for example.

In contrast, in the US, there's been legal challenges mounted against homeopathy as fraud and false advertising under consumer protection laws. If there's no evidence of efficacy, government safety organizations in countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand either don't allow a product to be sold as "medicinal," or don't allow it to be sold at all.

I don't know enough about Indian law to know how robust Indian safety or consumer laws are in terms of leveraging them to call out the same kinds of fraud, but what you're saying about the milk suggests they might not be. It's essentially a claim of "magic milk," given there could be no scientific test that such a claim could survive.

So, there's this absence of pressure from both internal and external. And as we know from evolution, it's pressure which drives change.

People need to be willing to treat Indian and Hindu superstitions the same as they treat Xian superstitions and other unscientific bunk, rejecting attacks on the basis of "racism" or "blasphemy" or "intolerance" or all the usual shit. But I think there also needs to be avenues culturally and legally within India to start challenging the assertions being made. I don't know enough about Indian society or culture to know how much of a superiority complex may be at play, but there is likely an element of ignorance, not necessarily wilful, just regular old ignorance, because of the pervasiveness and persistence of these ideas.

Of course, people are still free to believe stupid shit. But that doesn't mean it should get special, elevated status or be allowed to commit acts of rampant fraud.

[tiktok-singularity]

The best antioxidant: sumac

[onecornerface]

The "Hippocratic Oath" is very weirdly overrated in how our general culture talks about it. I don't know about its role in the medical fields today. The Oath's old versions have a lot of wild & outdated content. Go back and read it, it's weird stuff!

Also, the very idea "do no harm" is almost useless. Obviously nearly all medical treatments are guaranteed to do some harm. Pretty much the only exceptions are some pseudo-medicines like homeopathy which do nothing at all.

Maybe the idea is to avoid doing anything that causes more harm than it prevents? But nearly all medical treatments risk doing more harm than they prevent.

Or maybe the idea is to avoid doing anything that guarantees doing more harm than it prevents? But then that's almost ethically redundant. I'm not sure why you need an oath for that.

[elliepassmore]

The Last Bloodcarver review

5/5 stars Recommended if you like: Vietnamese mythology, science fantasy, magical medicine

The author describes this book as 'science fantasy,' which I think is an apt descriptor. Nhika's powers are within the realm of fantasy, but the way she thinks about her powers is more science, as are the automatons that help run the city. There are also doctors and medical advancements, like surgery, IVs, and organ transplants. I really liked this aspect of the book and thought the combination of magic + medicine was super cool. It was interesting to see how different characters viewed medicine and heartsoothing, particularly the differences between Nhika and Kochin, and how they reconciled those views. I also really liked seeing the duality of healing. It's not really something you see a lot with healer characters, but if you have power over a person's body systems, healing, and immunity, then you can just as easily use those systems for damage as well as for good, and I liked seeing Le use that in this story.

The worldbuilding is neat and gives us hints of a more complex system going on in the world. We spend the entire book in Theumas, which is divided into sectors based on the zodiac. I'm definitely intrigued by the way the city is setup, though I'm not sure we'll get an in-depth explanation for that since politics aren't really at the forefront of the novel. We do get a look at the class system of Theumas and how the boroughs correspond to that system. I liked seeing how things differed and how certain behaviors trickled down from the wealthier boroughs to the poorer ones.

While politics isn't at the forefront of this book, immigrants and culture are. Nhika is Yarongese, born in Theumas. Her parents and grandmother were born in Yarong but had to flee to Theumas due to war and colonialization, and then died when Nhika was young. So while Nhika learned her culture from her family, she also feels a disconnect due to living in Theumas and having to hide her heartsoothing. Nhika greatly yearns to belong and wants desperately to feel that connection to her culture, so those two things drive her actions through a lot of the book.

I liked Nhika as a character. She's been living on her own since she was 12 and, in order to survive and make money, has turned to homeopathy remedies to heal people and stay under the radar as a heartsoother. Try as she might to be tough, she has a soft inside and cares deeply about other people, even if she's just met them. This allows her to bond with the Congmi siblings, and later Kochin, despite slights and differences. Nhika is willing to stand up for herself and follow through on things, even when it's dangerous or difficult, and that perseverance both helps and hurts her at different points.

Kochin was a character I liked, then didn't, then did again. He has a very specific goal in mind throughout the novel, but he's somewhat clumsy in how he goes about it. In the end he pulls through and I liked that he was able to be there for Nhika and share some things with her closer to the end of the book. I do feel bad for him since he definitely got in way over his head and is doing the best he can to try and mitigate the damage to everyone else.

Despite Nhika staying with the Congmis for most of the book, I feel like I don't totally know them as characters, so I hope to see them more in book 2. Mimi is definitely a lovable character who is friendly and wants to believe the best of others. She's heartbroken by the recent loss of her father, and she seems to enjoy having Nhika around as a friend. That being said, she's somewhat naive about how the world works and just how much her family's money and social standing advantage her. Andao seems to be more aware of it, but he's got the weight of his father's legacy on his shoulders and rivals and friends coming at him from all directions to try and influence his moves.

Trin is a friend of the family and at first is kind of mean to Nhika, but he's a bit like Chubs from The Darkest Minds. What he really wants is for the Congmis to be safe and well cared for, and he's not afraid of giving someone the smackdown if they seem like they might threaten that, but is much friendlier once you're past that initial stage. I ended up liking Trin's character a lot and think he and Nhika have the beginnings of a good friendship.

The mystery was very interesting, and the seeds of it are laid from the beginning. It's somewhat predictable but it's still a very enjoyable story because there are twists to the mystery that aren't apparent at first. The last 1/3 was definitely tense since everything is coming together, and I really liked seeing how it all played out.

My one complaint about this book is that there's some instalove going on in it. It's very minor so I can kind of ignore it, but it seems like it might be a bigger thing in book 2 (maybe? Maybe it's just the consequences of that, we'll see.).

Overall I loved this book and can't wait to see what book 2 has in store! The combination of magic and medicine was super interesting, and I liked seeing how both were dealt with. I also thought the characters were well rounded and liked reading their interactions.

[tanadrin]

Doctors here in Germany are especially prone to prescribing, uh, how can I put this... bullshit that doesn’t work, which is in part probably a reaction to a culture that is in general more open to homeopathy and alternative medicine (derogatory), and part excess caution/paternalism on the part of the medical culture. Your German doctor might lecture you about the need to lose weight, but they’d also probably refuse to prescribe you a weight-loss drug, even one that was cheap and safe, which I think is pretty stupid.

In comparison, there is a view of American medicine as being relatively liberal with drugs, and while that might be true of some American doctors, it’s definitely not true of them all--from other peoples’ anecdotes it sounds like there’s actually quite a lot of medical gatekeeping in the US, despite prescription drug ads of the “ask your doctor if this is right for you” flavor. We just seem to have a really ambivalent attitude toward medicine. Some of this seems to be a reaction to illegal drugs, some of this seems to be skepticism toward the medical establishment, some of this seems to be a kind of generalized anti-intellectualism, and some of this seems to be a reaction to notable-but-rare medical disasters like thalidomide.

But it generally seems unwarranted to me, and as somebody who has dreamed of a transhuman future like that featured in the Culture novel for years now, I would be happy to take all the drugs if it made my life better.

[iatrophilosophos]

Homeopathy is such an interesting strawman. So many people have Big opinions about it, to the point I've met people who 1) hate homeopathy 2) didn't know herbalism and homeopathy are not one in the same.

And like....yah homeopathic products exist but they're not particularly unique within the canon of predatory health-related-products (a category which, mind, contains just as many claims made by western medical doctors as it does crystals) and. Uh. Y'know. Being pretty steeped in the milieu of crunchy alt health, I don't know anyone who uses homeopathy. I know a small handful of people who use spiritual healing practices that are like, idk fairly similar? But this is a like, going to do ritual with plants and be healed by spirits kind of deal, not a buying products kind of deal (& I think maybe one person I know maybe like, does some sort of education or writing about this practice but is also like. 1) not selling anything 2) not in the business of telling anyone what they should do and definitely not about to recommend someone forego more practical options or higher care). This is not something I do personally and also I do not give half a shit if other ppl do it bc I'm not a paternalist asshole.

People absolutely buy homeopathic products and shit, but I mostly see this as indistinct from buying crystals or nootropics or VitalMale Vitamin Blend or coquette girl wine replacer mushroom powder whatever. Like there are people who get really into all of these but they're just products--just another brand of "fill the hole in your soul caused by civilization and/or make us rich off your desperation and anxiety caused by the dogshit state-sanctioned medical apparatus"

Idk I think probably people rail on homeopathy bc it's the most ~obviously bullshit~ but this doesn't really. Help anyone, bc homeopathy is spiritual/energetic medicine which means ur scientific critiques are gonna be irrelevant to anyone who's interested in it bc it's just not about science,* and painting homeopathy as The Big Bad kind of sets up this expectation that the problem with predatory health-related-products is a lack of science, which like....homie u can pull a study for literally anything and science is fucking whack and corrupt as shit sometimes.

...the point remains, as always, that hierarchical healing and medical authority/subservience Are Bad And Get People Hurt, switching around who should be in a position of authority (ur local gp, the CDC, fucking Alex Jones, some lady on tiktok etc) does nothing to reduce the vulnerability and harm baked into the frameworks of western medicine**, and, as always, the way to resist medical coercion and predation is to foster autonomy, critical thinking, and education in that order.

*if anyone's curious, I would say the correct argument here is "do you seriously fucking trust a for-profit company to sell a spiritual product and be remotely honest about any part of its production".

**which are culturally present in the healer-patient relationships of predatory alternative health, regardless of if the content of that exchange is based in western medicine

[artechouse]

Is there any folklore/superstition you believe in? Ghosts, cryptids, luck, etc, etc.

Sure, I mean, I guess it depends on how you define folklore/superstition. I’m Jewish and that defines a lot of my worldview (not like I post about it a lot, haha) including saying certain prayers and avoiding certain foods, I wear a red string around my left wrist and try to take “active” actions with my right hand, that sort of thing. I attribute special meaning to what people say before a sneeze and I dabble in dream interpretation.

I’m fairly into astrology, I attribute that mostly to being on tumblr in 2014 (yikes), but I also think it’s a useful tool to confirm intuition. I’ve started recently using tarot for similar purposes, I try to interpret readings to my situation and often that reveals things that I subconsciously knew, or occasionally I’ll get a reading that just feels plain wrong, and that’s helpful too. The cards/stars don’t know everything, sometimes their wisdom is in helping me realize that I need to forge my own solution.

These things largely fall under an umbrella of “cultural practices that I find cool and useful for certain purposes but don’t necessarily *believe* in”. In terms of belief, I do occasionally employ folk remedies because I believe that if people have done things for thousands of years, there’s usually a reason why! But I also believe in Western medicine and use homeopathy as a supplement rather than a replacement.

I don’t have strong feelings about cryptids either way, but I think that some mythological creatures are common across so many cultures that they likely existed in some form in the not-distant past.