[klyrs]

Who said I'm angry? If the title was "American Men Are Losing Their Work Ethic", then I wouldn't have a problem with their statistical analysis -- except, perhaps, that they've further narrowed it to a certain age group -- perhaps, "Prime-aged American Males Are Lacking Work Ethic." They're drawing overbroad generalizations from a subset, and that's fishy at best.

I'm not "denying the author use the national identity." I'm wondering about is why the author would deliberately fail to examine a full half of the population. If you think that's problematic, I guess I'm okay with disagreeing with you.

The story further goes on to completely ignore the supply side: what jobs are available, and why don't "prime-aged males" want them? Is that an interesting story? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm sure there's nuance to be found there. But no, "Americans Are Losing Their Work Ethic" is easily supported with some cherry-picked charts and that's way easier to write about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

[politician]

Eberstadt has been doing the rounds with his research on this problem for several weeks. Reason is just the latest to run the story. I mention this because he’s very clear about the scope of the study in the paper. Feel free to criticize the scope: the many questions you raise are good questions for follow up.

[klyrs]

Bullshit me once, I stop listening. Those aren't follow-up questions, they're coffin nails. Blowing smoke up my ass about "good questions" is one of the most consistent ways that hucksters reveal themselves.

[politician]

I think there are legitimate avenues for follow up study in Eberstadt's paper. I'm sorry that you disagree, but waiting for every angle and every perspective to be explored before publishing isn't how research is done.