SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Poor mental health is an issue for many of our readers. That fact is underscored by the response to a tweet sent by @NatureNews earlier this week, which highlighted that rates of depression and anxiety reported by postgraduate students are six times higher than in the general population (T. M. Evans et al. Nature Biotechnol. 36, 282–284; 2018), and asked what should be done to help. The figures are a shock, but it was the reaction that blew us away: more than 1,200 retweets and around 170 replies.
“This is not one dimensional problem. Financial burden, hostile academia, red tape, tough job market, no proper career guidance. Take your pick,” read one. “Maybe being told day in, day out that the work you spend 10+ hrs a day, 6–7 days a week on isn’t good enough,” said another.
The feedback emphasizes something that Nature has highlighted often in recent years: there is a problem among young scientists. Too many have mental-health difficulties, and too many say that the demands of the role are partly to blame. Neither issue gets the attention it deserves. “I’d love to see some of the comments under this thread published,” wrote one responder. “There needs to be real conversation about this, not just observation.”
We agree — which is why we are publishing some of the responses. (You can read the full thread here.)
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday April 02 2018, @01:33PM (2 children)
I think the problem is there's just so much more of everything. Lots more good TV and music but countless mountains more crap. In the past you might only have to wade through 50 or 100 crap pieces of music or TV shows to find the real gem. Now there are 1000s. The numbers I gave get trimmed down if you're interested in a particular genre or even just what's popular or trendy (doesn't work well for me) but I'm still left questioning whether this can really be legitimately called a golden age. The mountains of shit taint the overall impression. That wikipedia link doesn't help the case for me either. I don't consider Lost or Battlestar Galactica (reboot) quality TV, so I'm not sure what this "international acclaim" is worth. They were both fairly entertaining but the habit of making it up as they went along constantly leaving plot threads dangling and their abhorrence of science drove me a bit nuts.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday April 02 2018, @02:05PM
One word: curation.
Yes, if you wander through the mountains of crap looking for a gem, you're going to see a lot more crap.
So, you don't start there. You start by following a number of review sites that display tastes similar to your own, and mine them for suggestions on new things to start watching. Or skim the "top NN things to watch lists". Don't just go randomly wading through the sewers and then complain about the scenery.
Because here's the secret - a lot of what you like is crap too. You just don't notice because its crap that managed to hit the high points that matter to you. A lot of what everybody likes is crap - the gems that see widespread accolades are very rare. Hell, I'd bet good money that even the masterpieces of Shakespeare or Dickens would widely be considered crap these days, losing out to the many crappy remakes that cater to the expectations of a modern audience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @02:05PM
That's the filter problem. Some years ago, I'd spend hours at weekend listening to bandcamp. In all that time I discovered only a handful of bands I thought were interesting. This is where instant access to market and lack of initial investment impacts quality control, "good enough" isn't. Bland, derivative crap reminiscent of wading through a "me too" (AOL Version (although there's plenty of "ear rape" involved)) comments section. Movies and TV have likewise been relegated to the level of fan fiction.