CharonY

I have seen the conflicting data. Book sales are up, even among GenZ but polls asking for books read show a significant decline. One way to reconcile this is that especially young folks are buying retro-stuff like books and vinyl. But they are not actually reading them.

I quick-skimmed the article and the impression I got was that author kind of tried to thread the needle between underdiagnosed conditions and the very prevalent self-diagnoses within online communities which are not really supportive but rather propagate conditions similar to fashion trends, which ultimately is destructive. I think at some parts it does read as if the author is conflating both a bit. This is probably just my bias, but my guess is that the author might be from the somewhat younger generation, and is more immersed in internet-culture and causing this imbalance. I think most older folks would have an opposite view, i.e. emphasizing the issue at the expert (i.e. MD) interface, and see the internet thing more as an odd phenomenon rather than the core reality. Again, it is entirely possible that my read is off, but if one is immersed in the TikTok culture where low attention span is an automatic ADHD diagnosis which needs accommodation, I kind of get where the bias in the reporting might come from. Moreover, if the author was a fairly recent graduate from uni, they will also likely have experienced the glut of formal accommodations that profs now have to offer students for things like ADHD. And I do think that for some of these conditions, even with formal diagnosis, accommodation might not be the best way to serve the individuals. But I should add that there is indeed a weird online culture where non-formal diagnoses are presented as quirky personality traits and where apparently whole engagement bait structures are built around them. It really feeds into my assumption that folks have lost touch with reality. The issue I do see is that there are legitimate support communities who try to help folks with chronic but undiagnosed conditions. But the lack of rigor and the immediate rush to TikTok any diffuse symptom is likely going to muddy the water more than being helpful.

Right now, I am not seeing that. There have been multiple scandals and reports on some of the more extreme ideas in the party. They have coined the word "remigration", i.e. deport folks that they do not consider German enough out of the country. There is a significant proportion of folks who would more than welcome ICE-style actions in Germany. Unfortunately what we see is that among youth the idea of the holocaust as something relevant is fading. I think they are most hardest hit by our new media landscape and anything beyond a few weeks barely exists for them, much less events that happened way before their birth. Especially young men are attracted to the AfD (60:40 split). While folks 30-59 are still more likely to vote AFD compared to <30, the latter is a big chunk of it. The oldest age group is the one that is least likely to vote AfD. I.e. I think it is overall worrisome, as I interpret that collective knowledge of history is lost or being revised in real-time and those with memories (direct or indirect) are dying out. In this case, I don't think the young ones will rescue the world, they (or least the men) are putting on the gasoline. Edit: I also read some article on young women voting for the AFD. Apparently there is a right-wing movement to attract these women, often via Instragram and TikTok. These groups are connected throughout Europe and associated with the respective parties (e.g., Vox, Rassemblement national, AfD) and a common narrative there is about the fear of getting raped by immigrants. But generally speaking, those parties are better at using TikTok (after all, creating outrage is part of their party strategy) and this is where young folks are especially vulnerable. I feel that to quite a sizable proportion of youngsters the internet is more real than their own IRL experiences and they are actually easier to manipulate than you would historically expect.

I think framing it through an American lens is too limited. These things are happening at a grand international scale and fuels the rise of populist party almost everywhere. As I mentioned earlier, despite the fact that for many voters immigration is one the highest priorities (regardless of how many immigrants they actually encounter), there is still nearly no discussion regarding cost/benefit analyses. In fact, seeing it as a net detriment is almost always a given. This even continues to happen if lack of immigration actually has a net negative impact or when studies show the opposite. The narrative then is that immigrants elsewhere are magically mooching off. The reason why these discussions are not happening has some unfortunate rationality to it. a) voters are not moved by facts, and even if it impacts them, it moves them very little. There is also phenomenon when core convictions are attacked, they become more entrenched, regardless of facts b) a rational discussion is easily dismissed as propaganda and just fuels their conviction that media are biased, c) rather unfortunately, there is a strong baseline xenophobia in virtually all societies. Ideas of taking the high road, i.e. sticking to one's ideals is rare, doesn't politically pay off. Merkel of all people refused to buckle on the right of asylum, something that is anchored in the German constitution. But perhaps even more shocking, she took a moral position (during the Syrian war), rather than demonize asylum seekers as "fake" which would have been the politically prudent position. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she had to step down. And make no mistakes, while some folks publicly draw a distinction between asylum seekers (legitimate or otherwise) and, say highly qualified immigrants, behind closed doors the latter are not really considered part of society and should, in their mind, be put in a more vulnerable position. Again, I think this is not a MAGA or American thing. The far right has managed to tap into a deep human emotion and we cannot rationalize our way out of it.

Yes and especially our collective memory and attention--- sQUIRRel!

Plus it helps to create the notion of perpetual victimhood. It is all the classics, really.

Interestingly, OpenAI claims that their new model was able to do just that. But quite a few remain skeptical, especially there are no preprints on it.

One can dream. But realistically, it appears that rich folks are shielded from accountability pretty much everywhere.

Funnily BBC requested Trump's business records for discovery (as Trump claimed damages to his brand and businesses). I wonder why. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001454 The title is: "The Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability?". And the answer is: yes.

Things are only to get dumber, aren't they?

That for sure. Plus moral judgement.

I will note that in cases where it is clear that the ailment does not heal (e.g. visible lesions, damages that impact physical movement, e.g. cerebral palsy) also carries social stigma. Obesity is also an interesting condition in that regard. It is considered lifestyle-associated and can be associated with moral judgement. At the same time, it has become so common in many societies that to some degree it is also normalized in part. Substance use disorders are similar, they are behavioral conditions, and have a heavy stigma (and as bonus, they can also exacerbate mental health conditions). Perhaps it is neither here nor there, but one definition of stigma is a visible indicator of disease, though perhaps not what OP has in mind. On the other side of the spectrum there are invisible conditions, like chronic pain, or autoimmune diseases. While the condition itself might not be stigmatized, individuals are frequently suffering from disbelief, i.e. folks think that their condition is not that bad, or they are just making things up to get out of work. And when it come to all of these conditions, there are degrees and on the extreme end I am fairly sure most have some sort of stigma or something similar to it. I suspect one can quibble about the precise definition of stigma, but, say, having a deadly infectious disease gets you isolated from any direct human contact quite literally.

While an amplifier, I am not sure whether an outside agent is really needed for this to happen. I will remind you that even before social media, fear of foreigners was a strong catalyst. However, there were certain social norms that disallowed serious parties to go full nazis. Of course, one could argue that softening these norms was caused by social media, certainly, the sentiments were much older. In this discussion regarding Saxony-Anhalt one should add that over the last decade it was getting a bit of a recovery with net migration into the state, filling some critical gaps contributing to growth. But a big chunk came from immigrants (e.g., Ukrainians) which then fed into the AFD narrative of folks taking their cookies. Probably obvious, but worth pointing out that compared to other states the proportion of foreigners to Germans is way lower than West German states. But again, this is not a new narrative and as folks never really cared for the actual numbers, there really was no need to fake info. It just "feels" right and that is all there is to populism. Edit: but of course money from Russia and support from extremists like, I dunno the US government, Musk and Thiel does help.

There is both. Even before social media some resentment was there between East and West, after the honeymoon period of reunification. Unfortunately there were also many old folks who actually want all that, minus the defeat in WWII and they taught their kids (now the old generation) accordingly. But yes crucial memory is fading. They do care but mostly for themselves and they lack the critical thinking skills to align that with reality. There is significant degree of that, though there are other factors at play. Almost everyone seems to feel left behind somehow. It is just some groups radicalize faster than others. But something weird is happening to society.

Based on the style of "discussions" I think what is really being sought is an echo chamber, which are easier to find in more modern types of social media rather than fora. Consider what OP, often uncritically, considers to be true, I also suspect that they are already exposed to them, so not sure if there is anything to recommend (the algorithm will do it).

I don't think that the assumption in OP is universally true. Ignoring the divide between mental and physical for now, there are a lot of conditions that stigmatized. Infectious diseases are one, where certain types, especially STIs carry a huge stigma. And likewise, there mental disorders of varying degrees and some have been very much normalized, sometimes to very weird degrees.

VW did invest into east Germany. What recall is that they reworked facilities such as in Zwickau. So there were heavy west German investment into the east. Yes, and much are historic structural issues. The fact that the west is draining talent and that Germany as a whole was resistant to immigration didn't help. Outside of major university cities the East especially didn't like to recruit foreigners, which would have helped the economy somewhat, so there is some self-inflicted pain and we see some of the worst elements happening in the east (aging community, stagnating economics and so on). The big one however is that the DDR was built on industries that were on the decline already and while service economy become more relevant in the West, they were largely absent in the East. Entrepreneurs would ultimately go West Germany for more opportunities. It is a bit like the situation between Canada and the US, only that mobility within Germany, and given the short distances is way higher. Fundamentally, there are folks full of nostalgia regarding their memories of the DDR, in which the government was propping up unproductive structures.

A lot of things happened. Essentially the country unified overnight and among the many things, a bit change was that the East German currency was converted 1:1 to the West German currency. A big issue arising from there was economic issues. In the former DDR (East Germany) companies were run by the state and had poor productivity. The currency exchange resulted in East Germans suddenly made ca. 70% of the income for their West German conterparts, however the industries had about 30-40% of their productivity. I.e. when converted to private companies, none of them were really viable. A second big change was the rebuilding of East Germany to address the issue. West Germans paid additional tax on their income, which got transferred to East Germany for big infrastructure projects. While it was supposed to be short-term, it ended up to be permanent. Ca. 400 billion euros were collected from it, and in addition to other project over 2 trillion euros were ultimately poured into East Germany in attempt to balance the economy between east and west. However, this was only partially successful and mostly worked in some of the larger cities (e.g., Dresden). A big issue was that Germany's economy was heavily built on middle-sized companies creating a supply-chain infrastructure for the larger ones (a model that is now in crisis, but worked very well in the past). But ultimately it was not seen as attractive to create companies in East Germany on that scale. Moreover, due to wage imbalance, many young folks moved to West Germany for better opportunities. Likewise, foreign investor saw West Germany as a better place for investment with adding issues later with xenophobia to the mix (though probably only a minor economic concern). Germany always had a somewhat xenophobic, ethnonationalist undertone, both in the West and East. In the West it was more covert, but especially in the 90s and early 2000s Germany did reject the idea of immigration as positive thing and for the longest time considered foreign workers as guests rather than members of society. This ultimately clashed with the reality of the need to get foreign talent in, and, unsurprisingly folks living there for a long time wanted to make a home, rather than return to their home countries after years or decades living in Germany and building a life and family there. However, few foreigners went to East Germany outside of the major cities and xenophobia remained much more overt. There had been cases of black workers and university students chased by groups of far-right youths, for example and open racism is still frequently reported by folks I know. Germany as a whole didn't like the idea of bringing talent in politically. Companies wanted to, but the most citizens resented that idea. There was a large discussion over it during the dot com boom and the government was loath to issue work visa for highly qualified folks. The idea really was to only bring temporary, low wage worker who then can be sent back rather rapidly. Again, something that didn't really worked like this in reality. No, the unification was complete and East Germans had not difference there. Except perhaps that they were fluent in Russian. Yes and no, see above. One could argue that the privatization of the east was mismanaged, but the roots were formed in the DDR. I don't this is fully accurate as such. As mentioned, a lot of money was poured in, though as a whole the German welfare system was suffering as a consequence. There were austerity principles, but still more money went from west to east, something that at some point built resentment in the west. The de-industrialization was more of a consequence of low productivity and even rebuilding infrastructure didn't fully resolve this. The idea was to move the CDU further to the right with Merz (he was ousted back in the day, in part because he was on the right fringe of the CDU and Merkel consolidated more towards the center). They hoped to gain votes from the AFD, and we can see that this is backfiring rather spectacularly. He is now despised by both right and left.

Well, they do do have a strong pro-Russia bias, which I am sure has nothing to do with financing of pro-Russian far-right influencers and sponsored trips of party members.

There a hypothesis floating around that one should give those extremist party a real shot at governing, as they typically have an unfavorable ideology/fanaticism-to-policy-ratio. I.e. if they fail to deliver, folks will recognize them as the snake oil sellers they are. Interestingly, after Trump 2.0 fewer folks are saying that now. In recent times only all too frequently the far-right extremist manage to get too close to catching the car. And as it turns out, their plan for governance is the same as campaigning: continue to lie and blame others. Today's society seems to encourage that (Liar's dividend): I.e. the idea is that making false claims ultimately pays off more dividends than apologizing (i.e. taking responsibility). Now using the spectre of AI, it will be even easier. It is probably a bit too early to see whether Reform voter will really change their minds, but my bet would be maybe a temporary slip and then some level of recovery.

The AFD has now won Saxony-Anhalt with ca. 44% of the votes according to latest results. It is the state with the oldest population and among the lowest percentage of foreigners. They are projected to barely miss the absolute majority, which would have made them take over the government. They still can, if they are tolerated by at least one other party. The only likely party is a populist one with mixed left and right populist messages but they already signaled that they likely won't. That all being said, it does show that the pivot to the right by the conservatives (CDU) did not pan out, rather then gaining votes from the far right, they lost over 19%, whereas the Afd won 23%.

Well, not sure about that, given the way things are moving. Some might think his speech is not radical enough. I guess we'll see but I think consequences for actions is not really a thing anymore.

This all true and interesting there is also the other side, where phytic acid have been discussed in the context of functional food due to its antoxidant properties. I.e. by chelating metals, especially iron, thereby it reduces radical formation This obviously has also been discussed extensively in the context of cancers, but I am not sure what the current state of discourse is (as everything ultimately boils down to cancer research, it seems).

Not sure, maybe, but I guess how dependent the party is on him. There was a similar scandal with the Austrian FPÖ which was part of the government, where the vice-chancellor (Strache) and deputy leader of the party were recorded to be open to offer business contracts in exchange for political support from Russians. While they ultimately resigned and the party lost some seats in the snap election, the party rebounded in the following regular elections. While the Strache officially left the party, he re-joined politics. And this was all pre-COVID and sense of reality has shifted even more in the public since then. Given that Farage is not (yet) part of the government, I wouldn't be particular surprised if he can just shrug it off. It depends on how much the British sense of appropriateness has changed. Adding his propensity to utilize the Liar's dividend (aka, lying through his teeth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar%27s_dividend), he might just as well claim that this is all a conspiracy made with AI or something. And folks will believe.

I have heard good things about the author, but have not read it. Might want to add that to things to look forward to (probably after retirement- if books still exist then). My problem is that I have to read too much stuff for work, leaving little time to read for enjoyment. I usually nab half an hour before bedtime every now and then, but frequently that is way past midnight and my eyes are not focusing anymore. I do not particular enjoy only have short segments of reading, especially for non-fiction. I miss being able to read through a book or a few novels over the weekend, for example. For lighter reads having a few minutes here and there kind of works, but it is somehow less fun and less immersing. I feel it also changes perception. I finished two very different novels (Klara and the Sun and Kafka on the Shore) and I would have assumed that I would like the latter more than the former, if I had read that in one setting. But in bits and pieces, the former turned out to be more memorable in my mind to my surprise. But maybe it is just my brain going mush and me needing more structure.