My view is at current time there are 3 main and overlapping issues going on—COVID, global warming, and civil unrest about racism and policing (which sort of started in USA but now is global).
These all will impact ‘mental health’.
I agree with another comment that some of the graphs are not that easy to decipher. Its interesting that while most of the ‘mechanical ’ and ‘intuitive’ measures agree or correlate, at the end of the list you have some mental interventions in which the mechanical scores are like −1 (unlike the other interventions) while the intuitive ones are still around 7--similar to the other intuitive scores --- (so they anti-correlate ). I wonder why these studies are so different (i can guess).)
I have seen 2 recent very well researched and hence convincing studies regarding the effect of social interventions on COVID pandemic (from teams of researchers in UK—imperial college, oxford, Stanford, Harvard, etc.) which came to opposite conclusions regarding the effect of ‘lockdowns’. One study said lockdowns had no effect; the other said they prevented possibly 100,000s of deaths. The graphs in these studies were not easy to interpret either, for me.
Since i dabble in ‘complexity theory’ , I dislike the use of the term ‘mechanical model’ here though its well defined---( cost X effectiveness) . i just don’t view it as what i call mechanical—though it can be interpreted that way. .
i view ‘mechanical ’ as referring to a newtonian classical physics type model. Many people into complexity theory (some experts and some amateurs) reject what they call ‘mechanical models’. They prefer what they call nonequilibrium, open system models with emergent properties . I personally don’t think there is any difference between these. Terms like ‘mechanical’, ‘emergent’ or ‘intuitive’ almost become like labels, brand names, ideologies, or ‘races’. Its a fuzzy concept unless you agree on the definitions—like mental illness.
comments:
My view is at current time there are 3 main and overlapping issues going on—COVID, global warming, and civil unrest about racism and policing (which sort of started in USA but now is global).
These all will impact ‘mental health’.
I agree with another comment that some of the graphs are not that easy to decipher. Its interesting that while most of the ‘mechanical ’ and ‘intuitive’ measures agree or correlate, at the end of the list you have some mental interventions in which the mechanical scores are like −1 (unlike the other interventions) while the intuitive ones are still around 7--similar to the other intuitive scores --- (so they anti-correlate ). I wonder why these studies are so different (i can guess).)
I have seen 2 recent very well researched and hence convincing studies regarding the effect of social interventions on COVID pandemic (from teams of researchers in UK—imperial college, oxford, Stanford, Harvard, etc.) which came to opposite conclusions regarding the effect of ‘lockdowns’. One study said lockdowns had no effect; the other said they prevented possibly 100,000s of deaths. The graphs in these studies were not easy to interpret either, for me.
Since i dabble in ‘complexity theory’ , I dislike the use of the term ‘mechanical model’ here though its well defined---( cost X effectiveness) . i just don’t view it as what i call mechanical—though it can be interpreted that way. .
i view ‘mechanical ’ as referring to a newtonian classical physics type model. Many people into complexity theory (some experts and some amateurs) reject what they call ‘mechanical models’. They prefer what they call nonequilibrium, open system models with emergent properties . I personally don’t think there is any difference between these. Terms like ‘mechanical’, ‘emergent’ or ‘intuitive’ almost become like labels, brand names, ideologies, or ‘races’. Its a fuzzy concept unless you agree on the definitions—like mental illness.