The idea that “Russians are dying of broken hearts” is a flawed statement that is built upon subjective analysis. It seemed as if both Parsons and Eberstadt tried to uncover why there is depopulation and higher death rates in Russia, but their task was fallible from the beginning. Globally, they sought to answer their questions in very different ways, but came to the same hazy conclusions. Parsons, the anthropologist, concluded that a lack of hope is the culprit for killing so many Russian citizens. She blamed the state for the new cultural perception, but I do not agree with that. Ultimately, the state did not change structurally so the lives of the general people was not altered either. When the state was still pushing propaganda, the entire population could have been physically supporting the state, but they could have been mentally aware of the lower class status they had. Just because the guise of a healthy state was taken away should not have such an extreme effect on the population’s health. As Gessen pointed out, Parsons overlooked many variables so she could present a “rational conclusion” to a global issue. This is a manipulation of what a social science should look like.

Eberstadt, on the other hand, looked at empirical data and statistics to try to piece the puzzle together. His analysis succeeds because he did not finish his research with a conclusion. Instead, he states “that a relationship does exist” but that more research is needed for it to be a proven fact. To me, this is a perfect marriage between using scientific methodology to investigate, but also understanding that there might never be a rational conclusion when it comes to the study of humans.