3 ms·

> How do we leave open the possibility of the first two outcomes while avoiding the third? It seems to me if the first outcome is true, then the third outcome

by umvi 7y ago

> How do we leave open the possibility of the first two outcomes while avoiding the third? It seems to me if the first outcome is true, then the third outcome is unavoidable

DougBTX 7y ago
You seem to be demonstrating how miscommunication is very easy in the example shown! In the example, the idea is that there is one new drug that was shown to be unsafe, but that there is a risk that the results will be misinterpreted to suggest that lots of other drugs are unsafe too. If the communication is handled well, then use of the new drug will never start, and people can continue to use other drugs which are safe. > then the third outcome is unavoidable Alternatively, if you mean that incorrect and misleading headlines are unavoidable... then yes, that is a persistent problem, agreed.
- umvi 7y ago
  If you develop a new vaccine, and if you confirm through repeated tests that it causes elevated levels of autism, then yes, you can now say "vaccines can cause autism." Or rather, in order to now claim that vaccines don't cause autism you will need to say "rigorously tested vaccines don't cause autism"
shadowgovt 7y ago
An alternative explanation (especially common in a small study) is that the control group and test group were actually biased in a way that the experimenters didn't detect, and had the experiment not been run, these two groups would still have the same rates of autism that the experimenters observed. This is why audience matters in communication; the previous is obvious to people familiar with medical trials (and population sample trials in general) and counter-intuitive to the general public unfamiliar with the mathematics of sampling. One thing that the modern communications era has changed is that it's much easier to find oneself talking to the general public without intending to. The common tools for mass-communication default open.

by umvi 7y ago

> How do we leave open the possibility of the first two outcomes while avoiding the third? It seems to me if the first outcome is true, then the third outcome is unavoidable

DougBTX 7y ago

You seem to be demonstrating how miscommunication is very easy in the example shown! In the example, the idea is that there is one new drug that was shown to be unsafe, but that there is a risk that the results will be misinterpreted to suggest that lots of other drugs are unsafe too. If the communication is handled well, then use of the new drug will never start, and people can continue to use other drugs which are safe. > then the third outcome is unavoidable Alternatively, if you mean that incorrect and misleading headlines are unavoidable... then yes, that is a persistent problem, agreed.

umvi 7y ago
If you develop a new vaccine, and if you confirm through repeated tests that it causes elevated levels of autism, then yes, you can now say "vaccines can cause autism." Or rather, in order to now claim that vaccines don't cause autism you will need to say "rigorously tested vaccines don't cause autism"

shadowgovt 7y ago

An alternative explanation (especially common in a small study) is that the control group and test group were actually biased in a way that the experimenters didn't detect, and had the experiment not been run, these two groups would still have the same rates of autism that the experimenters observed. This is why audience matters in communication; the previous is obvious to people familiar with medical trials (and population sample trials in general) and counter-intuitive to the general public unfamiliar with the mathematics of sampling. One thing that the modern communications era has changed is that it's much easier to find oneself talking to the general public without intending to. The common tools for mass-communication default open.