6 ms·

Ehhhh I feel like the researchers took 5000 variables and threw them at the wall to see what sticks. Living near busy roads is usually cheaper... And I doubt p

Ehhhh I feel like the researchers took 5000 variables and threw them at the wall to see what sticks. Living near busy roads is usually cheaper... And I doubt people with dementia are locking down C level positions

awjr 10y ago
The study specifically adjusts for poverty/lifestyle.
- reddytowns 10y ago
  But what proof is there that their adjustments covered every possible cause? I would suggest this is by definition impossible, since if we knew every possible cause for dementia, we would not need to do the study.
  - dpark 10y ago
    They obviously didn't cover every possible cause nor should they be expected to. With that logic no one could ever do an empirical study.
    - reddytowns 10y ago
      True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusions. Simply seemingly randomly choosing cofactors and then shrugging it off as good enough to draw conclusions from is sloppy. Typical, yes, but mean you shouldn't be skeptical of their conclusions, no.
      - dpark 10y ago
        Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status and because they answered that you now call it a random cofactor. Come on. You're not giving meaningful criticism. You're just being negative.
        reddytowns 10y ago
        > Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status I never said that. Maybe you are attributing the original poster's statements to me? Quite the contrary, my concern is the knee jerk conclusions people draw from these studies, and the perceived value of these studies by society. How many of studies like these actually end up advancing science in a meaningful way? If down the road, this study led to the understanding of some mechanism that causes dementia, that could then be used to develop a treatment, I'd be all for it. But mostly, crap like this seems to be just crap. I'm not saying it's not valuable at all, but the importance is vastly overstated. Rather than working on hard problems, researchers do this because it's easy and it gets them publicity. The public then just eats it up, including on HN, without critical thinking. It just is so masturbatory and delusional for us as a society to waste time with this shit.

awjr 10y ago

The study specifically adjusts for poverty/lifestyle.

reddytowns 10y ago
But what proof is there that their adjustments covered every possible cause? I would suggest this is by definition impossible, since if we knew every possible cause for dementia, we would not need to do the study.
- dpark 10y ago
  They obviously didn't cover every possible cause nor should they be expected to. With that logic no one could ever do an empirical study.
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    True, but there should be some rationale as to why they assume that normalization wrt the cofactors they've chosen are sufficient to provide for their conclusions. Simply seemingly randomly choosing cofactors and then shrugging it off as good enough to draw conclusions from is sloppy. Typical, yes, but mean you shouldn't be skeptical of their conclusions, no.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status and because they answered that you now call it a random cofactor. Come on. You're not giving meaningful criticism. You're just being negative.
      - reddytowns 10y ago
        > Your specific concern was about socioeconomic status I never said that. Maybe you are attributing the original poster's statements to me? Quite the contrary, my concern is the knee jerk conclusions people draw from these studies, and the perceived value of these studies by society. How many of studies like these actually end up advancing science in a meaningful way? If down the road, this study led to the understanding of some mechanism that causes dementia, that could then be used to develop a treatment, I'd be all for it. But mostly, crap like this seems to be just crap. I'm not saying it's not valuable at all, but the importance is vastly overstated. Rather than working on hard problems, researchers do this because it's easy and it gets them publicity. The public then just eats it up, including on HN, without critical thinking. It just is so masturbatory and delusional for us as a society to waste time with this shit.