I find Masha Gessen’s claim in “The Dying Russians” that broken hearts were the cause of dying in Russia provocative but not scientific and therefore ultimately not compelling. Her story about her time in Russia which she begins the piece with is captivating. It probably does capture certain aspects of the problems that effect Russia. However, it is just anecdotal. Gessen is unable to recognize or chooses not to acknowledge the limitations of anecdotal evidence and that is ultimately the reason why her argument fails. She chooses to fit the data to reflect her initial explanation of her experience rather than be open to amending or changing her explanation entirely. This is an example of the “method-driven” political science that Shapiro talks about. Her methodology is also very flawed. She focuses on “[ticking] off a list of culprits” instead of proving her own claim. She argues that if it’s not infectious disease, not diet, not the environment, not alcohol, not a typical cause then it must be a broken heart. Eliminating other popular explanations is never enough evidence itself to prove your claim. She needed to provide evidence for her explanation, and she does not do so, nor does she provide a framework for studying what she means by “broken hearts” (i.e. tangible indicators). Broken hearts are also less causal factors of death then correlated symptoms of the same problem. It is as much the cause of death as per capita cheese consumption is the cause of people who die by becoming tangled in their bedsheets.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Your article is a work of art, thank you for sharing it with us! Get the 5V0-31.23 valid test dumps test that contributed to my promotion and salary raise, available for free today. Best wishes for your career!
I walked away from that article with a deeper understanding. Best of luck! Here’s the free Training VNX100 Material material to help you.
I’m deeply inspired by your article, thank you for sharing! Get the Mock CIS-ITSM Exams questions that helped me succeed in my career—for free today!
I’m left in complete awe by your article, thank you for sharing it! Hope the SC-900 review guide exam goes well! Please wish me luck!
I agree with your reaction to her work, particularly when you are talking about Gessen “ticking off” different reasons that aren’t causing death, but not supporting her own claim. In this way, her work gives the appearance of being somewhat scientific, and yet when you look closer you realize that all of this just leads up to her grand hypothesis that none of her statistical evidence explains. Just because you can rule out some potential causes, that does not mean that the only correct answer left is your own. I also think, in this case, the emphasis should have been geared more towards cultural analysis and less towards the empirical, rational method of study. Overall, her piece should have focused on exploring any evidence she had to support her argument rather than looking trying to rule out all of the other hypotheses which, given the multitude of things that could be killing Russians, seems rather impossible to do, especially in just seven pages.