43 ms·
I dunno why you're getting down voted as this is a clear point to make. A fun game I like to play when I read these sorts of things in the news is to reverse th
by harryh 10y ago
I dunno why you're getting down voted as this is a clear point to make. A fun game I like to play when I read these sorts of things in the news is to reverse the causation implied by what I'm reading. Often times it make more sense. In this case:
Those with better mental health are more likely to do Scouts and guides in their youth.
- chris_wot 10y agoHow is this any better than the original hypothesis and conclusion?
- mmmrtl 10y agoIt's not - it points out that the two conclusions have equal supporting evidence, but different implications. Hence, based on the information in the article, there's no reason to expect that on average, a child joining scouts would improve their lifetime mental health. Conversely, looking at the source journal article, the researchers did actually check for confounders in several ways, giving some credence to the idea of a causative effect of scouts participation on lifetime mental health. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-207898.full http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
- kelukelugames 10y agoThe article was bad, but the study is hard to read. I'm not 100% sure but I think this this blip says scouting potentially has a casual relationship. It shouldn't translate to "Scouts provide mental health boost". >This study used a prospective cohort design, controlling for many of the factors that might affect participation in Scouts–Guides and later life mental health. Most of these measures were collected in the appropriate cohort sweep. The possibility of residual confounding, particularly due to missing or poorly measured socioeconomic variables, was further examined using three methods, a negative exposure control, an exploration of ‘dose–response’ and a measure of differing regional rates of Scouts–Guide attendance. Although there was no evidence of a dose–response relationship, the other methods supported the plausibility of a causal relationship.
- ars 10y agoHe's getting downvoted because he's short quip is not a useful addition to the discussion. If you already know that correlation != causation, then his quip is useless. If you don't, then those two words are also useless to you. Either way it's a useless post and if he can't be bothered to explain more, then don't bother making the post.
- harryh 10y agoThat's a fair point. Thx!
- robryk 10y agoI find such a comment to contribute more to the discussion (if it's actually discussed) than all the anecdotes from many of the other top-level comments. They are nicely worded and afford many points that can be discussed, most of them irrelevant to the matter of the article.