3 ms·

First, you may not be aware of yourself sufficiently, but you are being a real asshole. Second, you are correct that I didn't consider that design. This may be

First, you may not be aware of yourself sufficiently, but you are being a real asshole. Second, you are correct that I didn't consider that design. This may be because it is a little stupid, or at least impractical without the right target population. For example, if I wanted to study the effects of malnutrition it would make sense to do random assignment to individuals to food and food+extrafood conditions, but only if my sample contained a number of malnourished kids. If I took my sample from middle class America, and I assigned them to food and food+plusmorefood conditions (via force feed I guess?), I'd be studying obesity more likely than malnutrition. Levels matter. I'd guess that the primary interest in the present research is the effect of not getting physical affection as an infant. The effect between some and more affection, is probably qualitatively different than none and some affection.

gwern 9y ago
> First, you may not be aware of yourself sufficiently, but you are being a real asshole. Uh huh. > Second, you are correct that I didn't consider that design. This may be because it is a little stupid, or at least impractical without the right target population. It's neither stupid nor impractical, and I gave several examples, many of which could or have been done in the US. Even healthcare can be randomized in the US this way - consider the Oregon Medicaid or the RAND healthcare experiment. (Both of them, BTW, deliver the profoundly surprising result that correlation!=causation and additional healthcare does little for health.) As it is a priori unlikely that all US children are above some hypothetical threshold for cuddling - in which case OP would be even more dead on arrival that it looks - the design would be perfectly adequate to investigate the causal effects of cuddling. One can screen for low cuddling levels if need be to increase power. > but only if my sample contained a number of malnourished kids. If I took my sample from middle class America, and I assigned them to food and food+plusmorefood conditions (via force feed I guess?), I'd be studying obesity more likely than malnutrition. This is a bad example as middle class American kids are not 100% micronutrient replete. Iron deficiency/anemia is common, and even iodine deficiency is actually quite common according to the urinary surveys. (If you look, you'll find at least two iodine RCTs claiming noticeable cognitive benefits in New Zealand college students, a country typically considered better off than the US on public health.) Vitamin D is another question mark - the official RDAs are very low but they're heavily criticized and if you accept some of the higher recommendations, then middle class American kids are quite likely to be deficient (all that time indoors). > The effect between some and more affection, is probably qualitatively different than none and some affection. That would be very unfortunate for OP, then, as I doubt any of the kids in their study had literally zero affection, as they were not recruiting from Cold War Romanian orphanages.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  You have brought up some points I will ponder. Thank you. That said, your approach to discourse seems to be: argue everything, concede nothing. Scientists of this sort (and spouses for that matter) are the most frustrating people to deal with. It would have been helpful to the discourse, for example, if you could have conceded the obvious fact that some hypotheses should be tested at the level where the effect of interest lay; that levels matter not just quantitatively, but qualitatively. By conceding something as minor as this you could go a long way to becoming a better communicator of your ideas.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    For what it's worth I find your side of this conversation (the most recent few comments) to also be quite unpleasantly condescending. YMMV.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      That is fair. YHIHF

gwern 9y ago

> First, you may not be aware of yourself sufficiently, but you are being a real asshole. Uh huh. > Second, you are correct that I didn't consider that design. This may be because it is a little stupid, or at least impractical without the right target population. It's neither stupid nor impractical, and I gave several examples, many of which could or have been done in the US. Even healthcare can be randomized in the US this way - consider the Oregon Medicaid or the RAND healthcare experiment. (Both of them, BTW, deliver the profoundly surprising result that correlation!=causation and additional healthcare does little for health.) As it is a priori unlikely that all US children are above some hypothetical threshold for cuddling - in which case OP would be even more dead on arrival that it looks - the design would be perfectly adequate to investigate the causal effects of cuddling. One can screen for low cuddling levels if need be to increase power. > but only if my sample contained a number of malnourished kids. If I took my sample from middle class America, and I assigned them to food and food+plusmorefood conditions (via force feed I guess?), I'd be studying obesity more likely than malnutrition. This is a bad example as middle class American kids are not 100% micronutrient replete. Iron deficiency/anemia is common, and even iodine deficiency is actually quite common according to the urinary surveys. (If you look, you'll find at least two iodine RCTs claiming noticeable cognitive benefits in New Zealand college students, a country typically considered better off than the US on public health.) Vitamin D is another question mark - the official RDAs are very low but they're heavily criticized and if you accept some of the higher recommendations, then middle class American kids are quite likely to be deficient (all that time indoors). > The effect between some and more affection, is probably qualitatively different than none and some affection. That would be very unfortunate for OP, then, as I doubt any of the kids in their study had literally zero affection, as they were not recruiting from Cold War Romanian orphanages.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
You have brought up some points I will ponder. Thank you. That said, your approach to discourse seems to be: argue everything, concede nothing. Scientists of this sort (and spouses for that matter) are the most frustrating people to deal with. It would have been helpful to the discourse, for example, if you could have conceded the obvious fact that some hypotheses should be tested at the level where the effect of interest lay; that levels matter not just quantitatively, but qualitatively. By conceding something as minor as this you could go a long way to becoming a better communicator of your ideas.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  For what it's worth I find your side of this conversation (the most recent few comments) to also be quite unpleasantly condescending. YMMV.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    That is fair. YHIHF