5 ms·

I'd be slightly careful here about separating out the findings from the speculation. The study[1] looked at what changed in the women's brains, the regions in

I'd be slightly careful here about separating out the findings from the speculation. The study[1] looked at what changed in the women's brains, the regions in which it changed, and then tested to see which areas 'lit up' when viewing a picture of their own child vs. other children. In addition measurements were taken over time to see how permanent the changes were. The reasons for change and the actual/quantitative impact of the changes would have to come from another study. While what the "researchers thought" is interesting, it's not supported by any evidence, i.e. no measurements were taken to see if any of the suggested improvements were present. [1] http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4458.html http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.44...

mistermann 10y ago
FWIW my wife underwent a drastic personality change after giving birth, and I would definitely agree with this being one of the symptoms. But just one data point of course.
- zeroer 10y ago
  What was the change?
  - mistermann 10y ago
    The part of my experience that seemed relevant to the article: areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks ...was that I noticed she wouldn't differentiate between whether something had actually happened or not. For example, she could get quite angry at someone for something they didn't do, just thinking they "might" do it. Then again, maybe this personality aspect had been there all along and I had never noticed until the additional stress of having a new baby. EDIT: Please don't downvote me for answering a question.
- a_bonobo 10y ago
  Then again, we had a baby four months ago and I haven't yet detected any change in personality
- dsacco 10y ago
  I really don't want this to come across as rude, because I don't mean to single you out or invalidate your experience (or your contribution to discussion!). That said, what is the purpose of offering your anecdotal experience if you acknowledge that it is an n=1 datapoint? I understand that it's in good faith to acknowledge that your personal experience doesn't offer any statistical rigor to an interpretation of the foregoing article, but in my opinion your comment primes other readers in the discussion to subconsciously accept certain interpretations that aren't justified by the research. The main takeaway of your comment is "For what it's worth, I have an anecdote confirming an interpretation of the data that is not presented in the original study", and while you follow it up with the anecdote-acknowledgement, the "damage is done" so to speak. You've already opened Pandora's Box with regards to your subtle confirmation of the unsubstantiated interpretation. In my experience it takes conscious effort not to allow anecdotes to impact interpretation of data, and while I don't think you're doing it purposefully, I believe it's counterproductive to the parent comment's point to offer an anecdote to the discussion while simultaneously acknowledging that the anecdote does not in any way prove the interpretation.
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Because this is Hacker News, not the Journal of the American Medical Association. It's a community, and since it's acknowledged by the poster not to be a scientific observation, I'm not sure he needs corrected on it.
    - dsacco 10y ago
      That's a fair point, and maybe I'm just demonstrating a personal bias for a particular type of discussion that isn't reflected on Hacker News. However, I didn't try to "correct" the grandparent commenter so much as show that while an acknowledgement of an anecdote is made in good faith, it doesn't take away from the overall impact on the audience. We may not be researchers peer reviewing the work of colleagues here, but we can still strive for a certain level of scientific literacy and decorum in our discussion. Stated another way - if this were an article about computer science instead of neuroscience, would you expect the overall discussion to be stronger, the same or weaker compared to this discussion in terms of rigor? Furthermore, would you think that rigor was warranted on this forum (these aren't rhetorical questions, I'm curious)? I understand that disciplines like neuroscience allow us to relate with the science a bit (it's tempting to retroactively interpret our experiences with novel research!) but comments offering anecdotes, even with those expressly accounted for, allow biases to be couched in between legitimate data. I certainly think the grandparent comment would be challenged similarly if this was a psychological study with the current concerns about replication.
- dpark 10y ago
  As a counterpoint, my wife gave birth to our daughter a couple of years ago and I saw no noticeable personality change. She was perhaps more emotional at first but that seemed as much a result of sleep deprivation as the actual pregnancy and birth.

mistermann 10y ago

FWIW my wife underwent a drastic personality change after giving birth, and I would definitely agree with this being one of the symptoms. But just one data point of course.

zeroer 10y ago
What was the change?
- mistermann 10y ago
  The part of my experience that seemed relevant to the article: areas of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks ...was that I noticed she wouldn't differentiate between whether something had actually happened or not. For example, she could get quite angry at someone for something they didn't do, just thinking they "might" do it. Then again, maybe this personality aspect had been there all along and I had never noticed until the additional stress of having a new baby. EDIT: Please don't downvote me for answering a question.
a_bonobo 10y ago
Then again, we had a baby four months ago and I haven't yet detected any change in personality
dsacco 10y ago
I really don't want this to come across as rude, because I don't mean to single you out or invalidate your experience (or your contribution to discussion!). That said, what is the purpose of offering your anecdotal experience if you acknowledge that it is an n=1 datapoint? I understand that it's in good faith to acknowledge that your personal experience doesn't offer any statistical rigor to an interpretation of the foregoing article, but in my opinion your comment primes other readers in the discussion to subconsciously accept certain interpretations that aren't justified by the research. The main takeaway of your comment is "For what it's worth, I have an anecdote confirming an interpretation of the data that is not presented in the original study", and while you follow it up with the anecdote-acknowledgement, the "damage is done" so to speak. You've already opened Pandora's Box with regards to your subtle confirmation of the unsubstantiated interpretation. In my experience it takes conscious effort not to allow anecdotes to impact interpretation of data, and while I don't think you're doing it purposefully, I believe it's counterproductive to the parent comment's point to offer an anecdote to the discussion while simultaneously acknowledging that the anecdote does not in any way prove the interpretation.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  Because this is Hacker News, not the Journal of the American Medical Association. It's a community, and since it's acknowledged by the poster not to be a scientific observation, I'm not sure he needs corrected on it.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    That's a fair point, and maybe I'm just demonstrating a personal bias for a particular type of discussion that isn't reflected on Hacker News. However, I didn't try to "correct" the grandparent commenter so much as show that while an acknowledgement of an anecdote is made in good faith, it doesn't take away from the overall impact on the audience. We may not be researchers peer reviewing the work of colleagues here, but we can still strive for a certain level of scientific literacy and decorum in our discussion. Stated another way - if this were an article about computer science instead of neuroscience, would you expect the overall discussion to be stronger, the same or weaker compared to this discussion in terms of rigor? Furthermore, would you think that rigor was warranted on this forum (these aren't rhetorical questions, I'm curious)? I understand that disciplines like neuroscience allow us to relate with the science a bit (it's tempting to retroactively interpret our experiences with novel research!) but comments offering anecdotes, even with those expressly accounted for, allow biases to be couched in between legitimate data. I certainly think the grandparent comment would be challenged similarly if this was a psychological study with the current concerns about replication.
dpark 10y ago
As a counterpoint, my wife gave birth to our daughter a couple of years ago and I saw no noticeable personality change. She was perhaps more emotional at first but that seemed as much a result of sleep deprivation as the actual pregnancy and birth.