[HN Gopher] Individuals who share an ideology have more similar ...
___________________________________________________________________
Individuals who share an ideology have more similar neural
representations
Author : INGELRII
Score : 52 points
Date : 2023-02-10 12:14 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| DougN7 wrote:
| I wonder which is the cause and which is the effect. Aren't
| neural pathways changed by experience?
| kalimanzaro wrote:
| What does this imply for the following state (of mind), if it had
| basis in reality?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
| harimau777 wrote:
| I think that people confuse the tech-bro subculture with the
| wider developer subculture. My experience has been that the
| developer subculture is often more progressive than
| libertarian.
| Jensson wrote:
| The developer subculture is mostly pro meritocracy, so it
| isn't really modern progressive. Developers were progressive
| when meritocracy was progressive, but now they aren't.
| badcppdev wrote:
| I don't think the "developer subculture" is clearly bounded
| or uniform geographically. You state that the developer
| subculture has stayed with pro-meritocracy but I think it
| has changed.
|
| Where could we find a definition to check that we were
| referring to the same thing?
| Jensson wrote:
| From the internal forums at Google, from what I see
| online and have seen offline.
|
| Modern progressive anti-meritocracy people might be loud,
| but they are a small minority, even at Google at the
| height of progressivism there you would see pro-
| meritocracy views winning out strongly among developers.
| You also see it here, I feel most here on HN are pro
| meritocracy. There are some progressives around who go
| into every thread about the topic and post a lot, but
| meritocracy views and topics tend to get upvoted.
| snowpid wrote:
| It is very typical for such kind of paper using only the American
| political system and with a brief overview the authors arent
| aware of that flaw (also very typical)
|
| It might be at least interesting to see the hypothesis tested in
| a multi - party - system or countries with a less polarised
| society. Even similar polarised countries might be an interesting
| study subject as an parallel experiment..
| sotruexdg wrote:
| This seems like the WEIRD research subject fallacy due to the
| groups selected.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=weird%20research%20
|
| They could test religious ideologies, wonder if they would get
| the same thing.
| syzarian wrote:
| Maybe they should say, "individuals who share the same American
| ideology".
|
| What is interesting to me is this part of the abstract:
|
| _...revealing that polarization can arise from differences in
| the brain's affective valuations of political concepts._
|
| I wonder if things are reversed in the sense that consuming the
| same sort of news content causes those peoples' brains to end
| up with the same affective valuations. I know nothing about
| neuroscience but it seems if we took someone with centrist or
| left leaning views and subjected them to only political news
| from very right wing sources for a long time maybe their brains
| would be altered.
|
| Is it reasonable to wonder if similarities in brain responses
| to political concepts comes from consuming the same sort of
| media messages? Is Fox News (or left wing equivalent)
| unwittingly changing our brains (brain washing)?
| rayiner wrote:
| I suspect the opposite is true. Political orientation likely
| maps onto personality traits: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
| politics-55834023. The relevant political issues of the time
| may then cause people to react to them differently depending
| on personality traits, and cause people with similar traits
| to coalesce into like minded coalitions.
|
| That being said, psychology is a pseudoscience so who knows
| what anything is anyway.
| syzarian wrote:
| People can be "brainwashed" or "deprogrammed". Does this
| change the brain? Certainly the direction you propose is
| plausible. I wonder what the direction of the cause/effect
| is.
| rayiner wrote:
| Can they? https://theconversation.com/the-brainwashing-
| myth-99272
| edgyquant wrote:
| Yes and no amount of random articles will convince people
| this obvious fact is untrue. People can be conditioned
| and brainwashed just as I can breathe the air.
| syzarian wrote:
| That's a nice article. This line stood out to me:
|
| _This commitment arose from their conversion experiences
| and their gradual, conditioned acceptance of ethical
| misbehavior._
|
| I don't have a formal definition of "brainwashing". That
| term, to me, is akin to _gradual, conditioned
| acceptance_. From my reading of the article the author
| and I seem to have different perceptions of what the word
| "brainwashing" means. He does say that people are moving
| away from the term "brainwashing" and using terms like
| "coercive persuasion".
|
| This line too stood out to me:
|
| _We don't say that soldiers are brainwashed to kill
| other people; that's basic training._
|
| I actually would say that soldiers are brainwashed. I use
| that term in a colloquial sense. I use in the sense of
| the video linked to below.
|
| Let me state my question in a different way, does
| _gradual, conditioned acceptance_ change one's brain in
| any significant way?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n2gryg9Yvk
| edgyquant wrote:
| >Political orientation likely maps onto personality traits:
|
| Then explain political realignments. I personally have
| completely switched political parties in the last year, and
| I am not a 24 year old who's brain wasn't developed.
| rayiner wrote:
| Your brain does chemically change later in life,
| especially when you have kids. Apart from that, political
| parties are coalitions of different groups, and those
| coalitions (and the parties) change as the salient issues
| change. COVID was a good example of this, where the "fuck
| the establishment" types Trump recently brought into the
| GOP clashed with the "conformity and order" Romney types
| that traditionally controlled the GOP. My county, which
| includes Annapolis, went for Romney in 2012 and for Larry
| Hogan by 38 points, but Biden by 14. The area has a large
| military officer presence, and their inclination toward
| conformity, discipline, and order cut differently during
| COVID than when other issues were more salient.
| ergonaught wrote:
| Do you expect that human brain adaptation occurs differently
| for some reason in environments where "individuals who share an
| ideology" happen to not be sharing "American" ideologies?
| anotheraccount9 wrote:
| I think he meant to test this outside a 0-1 choice of
| ideology.
| snowpid wrote:
| yes, multi-party systems dont have an usual 0-1 binary
| thinking.
| snowpid wrote:
| it might be a case for societies where is a stronger group
| identification (e.g. identification for the nation)
|
| And again, American political system is rather unique in the
| Western world. At least it should discussed in the discussion
| chapter.
| luckylion wrote:
| > it might be a case for societies where is a stronger
| group identification (e.g. identification for the nation)
|
| Did you mean nation as in ethnicity? Because otherwise I
| think the US's identification with the nation is pretty
| strong across both camps.
|
| > And again, American political system is rather unique in
| the Western world.
|
| It is? Even with multiple small parties, you'll still
| largely get ideological camps. It's rare that you have
| parties that pick their ideas from all over the place.
| snowpid wrote:
| In some nations some political decisions are consensus
| (e.g. NHS in UK, Russia as an enemy in Ukraine)
|
| Nation can be seen as an consensus ideology and if you
| share some opinions you can get along better on other
| topics.
| luckylion wrote:
| Sure, and _some_ political decisions have broad consensus
| in the US as well, e.g. Medicaid. But that really doesn
| 't say much, because other topics are different and the
| NHS being broadly accepted doesn't help with collectivism
| vs individualism, pro/anti-EU etc.
| snowpid wrote:
| to refer back to my original point: Other nations have a
| more common ground so the study result might not apply to
| other countries. I think I showed enough reasonable
| arguments for that potencial case.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Nation can be seen as an consensus ideology and if you
| share some opinions you can get along better on other
| topics._
|
| In some sense, it's the job of public education,
| particularly through the curricula of history and $local-
| official-language, to _establish_ that consensus ideology
| - to create unity by exposing everyone to the same large
| landscape of stories, opinions and beliefs, so that any
| two people of a nation can quickly establish some common
| ground between themselves and get along.
| luckylion wrote:
| > to create unity by exposing everyone to the same large
| landscape of stories, opinions and beliefs
|
| Or, in other words: to the same reality (it doesn't
| matter whether it's factually accurate, only that it's
| widely shared).
|
| Is there a way back to more shared reality without one
| side wiping out the other? A common threat that just
| makes the differences in perception meaningless next to
| the shared perception of that threat? Aliens invading
| would probably help, at least temporarily. Maybe, if you
| keep that up for two generations, they'll have forgotten
| most of the ideological identities that had divided them,
| and will only rediscover them after some amount of
| lasting peace?
| bluetomcat wrote:
| In non-media-hyped societies, voters of different parties can
| sit on the same table and talk about their lives without ever
| touching political issues. This kind of polarisation is a US
| phenomenon that is spreading worldwide like wildfire through
| mass-media outlets.
| luckylion wrote:
| Yeah, I'm sure that would've gone over well in Germany in
| the 30ies, NSDAP members and KPD members discussing their
| lives without touching political issues.
| snowpid wrote:
| Weimar in the 30ies was heavely poralised.
| luckylion wrote:
| It was, but it wasn't "a US phenomenon that is spreading
| worldwide like wildfire through mass-media outlets".
| People don't need mass-media with a 24-hours news-cycle
| and social media bubbles to get polarized.
| adamrezich wrote:
| but the internet connections in our pockets certainly
| don't help things either
| bluetomcat wrote:
| Case in point from where I live: Bulgaria. Just 10 years
| ago I can remember a time when Facebook was used
| primarily for sharing family photos and journeys. Now it
| has become a toxic pit where grumpy and bitter aunties
| are reading fake news and writing insulting name-calling
| comments after anyone who expresses disagreement.
| Political figures are impulsively posting short write-
| ups, full of emotional hatred. Short memes and news-
| invented neologisms are circulating all over the societal
| discourse. Problems that were once non-existent in
| Bulgarian society, are now discussed with vehement
| enthusiasm and basic misunderstanding.
| luckylion wrote:
| Unfortunately we don't have access to an alternate
| universe where Bulgaria has taken the same trajectory in
| all things but Facebook, Twitter etc had been banned.
|
| But my guess is: it wouldn't have mattered. I don't
| believe that we get that behavior because Facebook
| enables us to be petty. I believe that we get that
| behavior because of the circumstances (i.e. rapidly
| changing economical and cultural environment that make
| people fearful and uncertain and will make them fall back
| on their core values) and people realizing that you can
| convince/manipulate others better if you deliver your
| messages in a short, meme-style format, appeal to their
| emotions, play into identity politics and "own" the other
| side. Even if you outlawed Facebook, once politicians,
| activists etc realize that this works, they'll use it in
| whatever media you allow.
|
| The only winning move (individually) is not to play, at
| least that's my experience. You can tune out, concentrate
| on whatever you deem important and the world won't fall
| apart just because you're not spending your time and
| energy explaining to people that they're being
| manipulated, because after all, most things move slowly.
| Before each election, everybody speaks as if this was the
| one that matters. As if, should they lose this time, all
| is lost because _they_ will destroy everything. And
| afterwards, everything just trots on as it always has
| (Yes, I 'm sure there are exceptions, but in most
| countries the situation isn't exceptional). And if you do
| play and try to educate others about their manipulated
| intellects, all they'll see is that you are being
| manipulated and you're now trying to manipulate them. It
| feels great sometimes to tell them off and get applause,
| but you won't change hearts and minds, and you should be
| aware that it's a game.
|
| On the other hand, I firmly believe: if you want to
| improve society, hug the bitter aunties, ask them how
| they've been and share some traditional food you can bond
| over, that'll make it much easier to communicate and find
| common ground.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Hmm, is the article talking about party members, or just
| people who identify with certain beliefs? Its seems to me
| like you risk comparing apples and oranges.
| coldtea wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Because American "ideologies" also correlate strongly to city
| vs rural, skin color and ethnicity, and other factors, which
| is not necessarily the case in many/most countries whereas
| there might be more choices, and the kind of people believing
| in each more equally diatributed...
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| I live in Germany and I would say, that is very much the
| case here, in fact probably more so than in the US.
|
| And in any case, why would you expect this to not be the
| case? Should people in different living circumstances
| magically have the same beliefs, interests and desires?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Should people in different living circumstances
| magically have the same beliefs, interests and desires?_
|
| Magically no, just practically. Which is often the case,
| because the ideologies concerned don't touch on rural vs
| urban "beliefs, interests and desires" but other
| divisions, like progressive vs conservative,
| environmental vs economic push, nationalist vs
| regionalist, and others. Sometimes the "beliefs,
| interests and desires" are even irrelevant, as dominant
| parties offer the same kind of programs, and it's just
| party loyalty that gets one to one or the other.
|
| Germany has 5 parties in parliament (with sizable
| representation), the US has had two for a good while
| (with insignificant independent inroads). German party
| ideology is much more segreggated and divided among
| states than in Germany. Germany is much more homogeneous
| by population. And many other factors besides.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| You obviously did not get around much, and never ventured
| out of your peer group abroad. If anything, humans are
| remarkably similar, and that similarity transfers even to
| the ugly of racism, sexism etc.
|
| Just because some country has no empire to project the
| ugly, doesent mean its not there.
| coldtea wrote:
| I've actually travelled all around the world (including
| the US), but thanks for the irrelevant ad-hominem...
|
| > _If anything, humans are remarkably similar, and that
| similarity transfers even to the ugly of racism, sexism
| etc._
|
| Which is neither here, nor there.
|
| Nor does every country/culture has the same levels of
| racism, sexism, etc. Same way they don't have the same
| levels of religiousness, mass shootings, and so on.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| Naw, alot of the mass shooting is just empire violence,
| the individual thinking itself something elevated by
| virtue of being part of society, can no longer take
| insults/setbacks and goes on a rampage against the
| insulting other and its future.
|
| Its all been there and it has been widespread, though not
| always in this shape and form.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel
|
| The religousness of the US and its conservatives are not
| that rare either. Iran comes to mind.
| cainxinth wrote:
| Yet another reason to discount the philosophical concept of free
| will. We are all born with genes we didn't choose and raised by
| people we didn't choose in environments we didn't choose... and
| any 'choices' we make thereafter are heavily influenced by those
| factors, all of which were completely out of our control.
| meitham wrote:
| All my choices are influenced by these microbes in my gut, they
| outnumber my cells, it's them not me typing this response now!
| cainxinth wrote:
| Joking aside, can I ask two things? 1. Do you actually
| believe strongly in the concept of free will? And 2. Are you
| at least moderately successful in life?
|
| I've found that successful people generally don't like the
| idea that their achievements might not be the product of
| their own clever and freely made choices.
| meitham wrote:
| I am moderately successful in life, and I do believe in
| free will, but I also attribute much of my success to luck,
| and only smaller part to making the right choices.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| Ok, let's imagine we all agree that free will doesn't exist.
| Now what?
| haswell wrote:
| If we all _actually_ accepted this today, incarceration and
| policing reforms become an immediate moral imperative, as
| would changing attitudes about the behaviors of those around
| us. The resulting societal changes would arguably change the
| world for the better.
|
| The notion that individuals should be punished for
| circumstances outside of their control is as problematic as
| jailing someone for getting the flu.
|
| This isn't to claim that criminal behavior is acceptable or
| that nothing should be done about it, but the change in
| understanding of the behavior itself would immediately demand
| a shift towards rehabilitation instead of
| punishment/vengeance.
|
| Some people are still gonna have to be locked up, just like
| critically ill patients require ongoing care. But headlines
| like "scientists make breakthrough discovery in correcting
| brain chemistry that leads to sociopathy" will be as exciting
| as headlines about cancer cures.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >If we all actually accepted this today, incarceration and
| policing reforms become an immediate moral imperative.
|
| Nope, I have no free will with which to choose to stop
| imprisoning people in horrible conditions.
| bena wrote:
| Yeah, it's hilarious because it's a useless question and
| a useless answer.
|
| Because what they're asking is "What if we could
| fundamentally change existence?" That's what it would
| take to perform these reforms without the existence of
| free will. Because people wouldn't have the choice to do
| whatever.
|
| So while we would have to accept that not only are
| criminals incapable of doing anything different, but also
| the police are incapable of doing anything different, and
| the people hiring them, etc. Turtles all the way down.
|
| Nothing changes.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| It would change nothing. We incarcerate to deter crime, and
| deterrents are a factor in decisions regardless of if you
| believe free will is a meaningful concept.
| luckylion wrote:
| Political persuasion is now a protected class.
| m3047 wrote:
| In my opinion this is a failure of systems thinking: "Your
| (money / horse / car / thinking) is no good use this (money /
| horse / car / thinking) instead."
|
| There is an epistemological problem with evaluating the
| objectivity and authority of such statements, as well as a
| question of fitness for local conditions. These things can be
| in conflict, there is no one global correct answer.
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| Prior to reading the article, I had a mental model of a joke
| headline "scientists find people who think alike think alike".
|
| But as others say here, using binary US politics in this kind of
| research makes little sense.
| agoose77 wrote:
| Has anyone looked at the sketchy figures? Talk about jumping to
| conclusions ...
| wrycoder wrote:
| The study purports to document physical characteristics in
| Republican and Democratic brains related to the good vibes
| associated with preaching to the choir.
| meitham wrote:
| There's an old Arabic philosophy that also suggests facial
| similarities between people that share similar thinking, or more
| like your facial features will develop according to your
| personality traits so eventually your look will converge to your
| likeminded. The theory goes further by classifying these looks
| into the closest animal and the traits from that animal.
| suslik wrote:
| The specific theory is bogus, but is the general principle
| completely unthinkable? For instance, some facial features
| might correlate with hormone exposure during development, which
| in turn might correlate with brain development and thus
| character traits. Might not be a very strong correlation, of
| course, but human brains are exceptional in pattern recognition
| when it comes to facial features.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| Isn't there something similar elsewhere where the owners and
| dogs are supposed to look or behave like each other?
|
| edit: search for "Like owner, like dog"
|
| e.g., https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smarter-you-
| think/20...
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| If you look similar you probably come from the same place. If
| you come from the same place you were probably exposed to the
| same culture. If you were exposed to the same culture you
| probably hold very similar worldviews.
|
| I mean, it's not that deep of a theory, especially in the old
| days were people moved a lot less and culture norms were
| strongly enforced
| harimau777 wrote:
| I suppose that it could also be true that the facial
| expressions that someone regularly makes influences the
| wrinkles that develop as they age.
| meitham wrote:
| No. Another kind user @badcppdev posted links to these
| theories up in the thread. You will find these various
| similarities across cultures and races, and you will find
| differences within one family and village.
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| What he linked is not relevant to what I said, plus I used
| a probabilistic and not deterministic argument.
|
| You could deduce where people came from by how they looked
| because the world was much more inbred and isolated in the
| past. As such you could correlate physical characteristic
| with cultural upbringings and thus worldviews.
| badcppdev wrote:
| So like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology but for the
| front of your head rather than the top.
|
| I've just found it's referred to as:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy
|
| See also:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmistry
| meitham wrote:
| Thank you for putting all the references for something I
| vaguely came across. I will have a very long read this
| evening
| jdmtheNth wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Or is it: Similar neural representation leds to shared ideology?
| jrsj wrote:
| How long until it's a common part of the interview process to do
| a brain scan for wrongthink?
| pfdietz wrote:
| Sabine Hossenfelder tweets sarcastically on this.
|
| https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1623728595297345538
| messe wrote:
| Relevant xkcd "Linear Regression": https://xkcd.com/1725/
| kelipso wrote:
| From one of the authors: "It's not a linear regression. This
| representation is a typical mistake when using mixed effect
| statistics. It is a "dyadic regression" which is a complex
| mixed effects procedure. We avoid such representation for ME
| but reviewers ask."
| (https://twitter.com/ulugeyik/status/1623654892639330304)
|
| So there's more to the story but that graph is really easy to
| make fun of because it looks like a linear regression.
| messe wrote:
| Interesting. That's not from the authors though:
| https://twitter.com/ulugeyik/status/1623749246322089984
| kelipso wrote:
| Oh ok, just seemed like it from the way he talked but
| yeah, it is dyadic regression so there's more the story
| (no idea what it is) but it's still such a terrible graph
| that I would never want to put in a paper.
| syzarian wrote:
| Expert with controversial opinions in her area of expertise
| feels qualified to criticize the work of experts in an area she
| knows nothing about.
|
| EDIT: Turns out it's a dyadic regression and Sabine doesn't
| know what she is talking about.
| jerf wrote:
| Brain Thing Correlates With Other Brain Thing is the expected
| result of _any_ two Brain Things, because _all_ the Brain
| Things correlate. The failure here is a variant of the
| Streetlight Effect; we looked for this one correlation, we
| found it, so it must be important. It 's not, unless it's
| really strong, because in this space, everything correlates
| to everything. To be _important_ , there needs to be
| something more than "a correlation"; that's so expected as to
| be a near zero-bit contribution to science. For there _not_
| to be _any_ correlation would actually be the surprising
| thing!
| syzarian wrote:
| From my brief reading on dyadic regression your first
| sentence is why dyadic regressions are used in the
| circumstances of the paper. I don't know the validity of
| the paper but I do strongly suspect Sabine doesn't either
| and that her Tweet says more about her ignorance of the
| topic than it does about the validity of the paper.
| jerf wrote:
| I find there is a substantial difference between the
| intended performance of statistical tools intended to
| compensate for such things, and the actual performance of
| such tools. See also the attempt to filter out
| "confounding" variables in more normal statistical
| analyses; I personally believe that the effectiveness of
| such tools are _extremely_ overstated and overestimated.
| There is a certain intrinsic circularity to any such
| tool.
| abnry wrote:
| I mean, do you honestly think that the graph represents a
| good linear fit?
| syzarian wrote:
| The data does not appear to me to represent a function.
| There is a lot of verticality to the data. It's doesn't
| appear to me to be logistic, exponential, or a higher
| degree polynomial. What is the best model? I don't know.
| I'm not a statistician or a neuroscientist. Maybe they have
| reasons for doing a linear fit in this case that we aren't
| aware of. Typically experts have reasons for what they do
| and their reasons would seem reasonable to me if I knew
| what they did.
| dopu wrote:
| I don't know who she is, but you don't need to be
| neuroscientist or a statistician to see how laughably bad
| that correlation claim is.
| syzarian wrote:
| I don't know neuroscience. I do know that sometimes there
| is so little known about a given area that one has to grasp
| at straws so to speak. You look for clues and present the
| findings. I don't know what one does with the data
| represented. It appears to me that the data doesn't
| represent a function. There's a lot of "verticality" in the
| data. It's obviously not exponential, logarithmic, or
| parabolic or some other higher degree polynomial. So how
| does one fit such data? I don't know. Is it dumb to use
| linear fit? Or is it common practice with such data?
| Jensson wrote:
| This is a very important part:
|
| > It is important to note that throughout our analyses, the topic
| of immigration elicited the strongest polarized response. That
| these effects did not extend to the other political topics is
| likely the result of the political climate at the time of data
| collection, which took place at the beginning of 2019, only a few
| months after D. Trump introduced the Build the Wall, Enforce the
| Law Act.
|
| So it doesn't seem that there is a difference in general, just
| that the climate then created a very different environment for
| the sides. They didn't find such differences on abortion or black
| lives matter, its just immigration in a very special time.
| moremetadata wrote:
| > Through targeted online and field recruiting (N = 360), we
| invited 44 participants (equally split among liberals and
| conservatives) to participate in a study on political cognition
|
| And thats your problem with science. We dont know how old these
| people are, we dont know the selection process, ie were they all
| recruited down the local Masonic Lodge, or at a University, or at
| a Church.
|
| More data is needed on the recruitment processes in order to
| eliminate any selection or manipulation bias, otherwise am I
| watching a scientific magic show?
|
| We dont know if these people are Early Adopters on the Everett
| Rogers Diffusion of innovations curve.
|
| It might be better to title this study, fMRI used to map Social
| Conformity as studied by people like Solomon Asch or fMRI used to
| map Authority to Obedience as studied by people like Stanley
| Milgram and more recently Phillip Zimbardo, where the
| idea's/ideology are the authority.
|
| Would that be fair?
| version_five wrote:
| I'm extremely skeptical of anything that stereotypes like this.
| Let's see if this holds up, my money's on it turning out to be a
| kind of phrenology
| ugjka wrote:
| Pushing paper count is easy (and get some headlines)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-10 23:01 UTC)