Gessen\u2019s claim that \u201cRussia is dying of a broken heart\u201d is misplaced in scientific or even social analysis. She attempts to use a kind of middle-range theory, such as the one Ziblatt advocates for, to describe a country of over 144 million people over a range of almost 100 years. Gessen completely fails to examine the scope conditions and any limitations on generalizing her (already questionable) findings. The conclusion that the death rate in Russia is due to cardiovascular disease is quite possibly a solid one \u2013 however, she fails to substantiate it with convincing evidence. It is true that the physiological outcome of stress, mediated by many deleterious effects of the hormone cortisol, can lead to immune suppression and increase the chance of contracting disease such as CVD. However, Gessen uses ungeneralizable and unsubstantiated evidence that in no way qualifies as scientific.<\/p>\n
Gessen\u2019s emotional approach, beginning with an (irrelevant) sob-story about how she lost many friends to AIDS in the US and then was told she shouldn\u2019t be surprised that her Russian friends were dying as well \u2013 literally \u201ccrying on a friend\u2019s shoulder\u201d \u2013 is antithetical to any type of scientific study. While emotional appeals can be effective in journalism, Gessen\u2019s article masquerades as scientific analysis of Russia\u2019s high death rate, a quantitative statistic. Scientists of all kinds, including those in \u201csoft\u201d sciences, strive for impartiality because emotion leads to distortion such as confirmation bias. Gessen\u2019s emotional connection to the country also dissuades her from considering what Scott proposed \u2013 that people may lie to analysts to portray themselves or their culture in a certain light. Parsons\u2019 \u201clong, unstructured interviews\u201d offer only the perspectives of several in millions, and there is no guarantee that that these perspectives are reliable.<\/p>\n
The weakest aspect of Gessen\u2019s analysis is when she connects the \u201cbrief breaks in the downward spiral\u201d with periods \u201cof greater hope,\u201d namely the Kruschev and Gorbachev eras. There is nothing that indicates causality between these eras and hope, or hope and low death rate. It would be more accurate to discuss the effects of less-repressive regimes and more open economies on, for example, food availability and nutrition, or stillbirths. Gessen states, \u201cdeath and birth statistics appear to reflect nothing but despair.\u201d Not only does she imply causality here, she implies exclusive <\/em>causality! This is a huge oversight and inappropriate for any remotely scientific analysis.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gessen\u2019s claim that \u201cRussia is dying of a broken heart\u201d is misplaced in scientific or even social analysis. She attempts to use a kind of middle-range theory, such as the one Ziblatt advocates for, to describe a country of over … Continue reading