3 ms·

A confounder can remain a confounder even when you think you have controlled for all variables. Clearly social scientists are not properly analyzing their data,

A confounder can remain a confounder even when you think you have controlled for all variables. Clearly social scientists are not properly analyzing their data, why should I trust them to be properly controlling for counfounding variables? I'd rather just see studies with enough data to measure the strength of a correlation than studies which are completely unreliable because of bad statistics or not enough data, as explained in the article. For example, you could do a large study where you measured the correlation of wine drinking with obesity. This study would at least tell me interesting information, even though I wouldn't know exactly if there is a causative relationship. But if the correlation was high and I wanted to lose weight I would stop drinking wine and see what happens. Maybe there is a confounding variable, maybe there isn't, I'd take that chance if I wanted to lose weight. This is much better than the current state of food and exercise studies where none of the information is reliable because of cherry picking stats and low sample sizes. As detailed in the article, we don't know anything about food and exercise from studies besides the basic physics that to lose weight you need to use more calories than you take in.

jschwartzi 10y ago
The problem is that a study of the correlation of wine drinking with obesity would find an inverse correlation, as people who drink wine are more likely to be affluent and thus less likely to overeat. I think that when we get down to it the obesity epidemic in the US is a consequence of people not having enough time or money to buy unprocessed foods and cook them, and not a consequence of their lack of control.
- throw_away_777 10y ago
  I would need to see the data. But already we can have a useful conversation about this fictional data, as opposed to a study where they gave an extra glass of wine to 10 people as opposed to a "control" sample of 10 more people and observed what happened. Such a study is basically useless given the noise in what gets published. For years tobacco companies argued that correlation is not causation.
stdbrouw 10y ago
Today is your lucky day. Many of the kinds of huge observational studies you would like to see actually exist! One example: https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/ https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/

jschwartzi 10y ago

The problem is that a study of the correlation of wine drinking with obesity would find an inverse correlation, as people who drink wine are more likely to be affluent and thus less likely to overeat. I think that when we get down to it the obesity epidemic in the US is a consequence of people not having enough time or money to buy unprocessed foods and cook them, and not a consequence of their lack of control.

throw_away_777 10y ago
I would need to see the data. But already we can have a useful conversation about this fictional data, as opposed to a study where they gave an extra glass of wine to 10 people as opposed to a "control" sample of 10 more people and observed what happened. Such a study is basically useless given the noise in what gets published. For years tobacco companies argued that correlation is not causation.

stdbrouw 10y ago

Today is your lucky day. Many of the kinds of huge observational studies you would like to see actually exist! One example: https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/ https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/