5 ms·

I know that it's entirely irrational and counter-productive, but I can not bring myself to do this and find out things I'd rather not spend the rest of my (hope

by pstack 15y ago

I know that it's entirely irrational and counter-productive, but I can not bring myself to do this and find out things I'd rather not spend the rest of my (hopefully not too short) life obsessing over. I'm already busy enough focusing on the obvious things, like being overweight. If I discovered that I'm certain to end up with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or something, I might have a pretty difficult time coping. It makes no sense. It's entirely irrational. I love information. Knowledge. Informed decision making. And yet . . .

akozak 15y ago
Believe me, it's unlikely you'll get anything that dramatic.
arrogant 15y ago
This. I don't even like going to Web MD, in fear of exaggerating a condition or, even worse, synthesizing symptoms. I can't imagine knowing several years ahead of time that I have a high chance of developing this or that unpreventable disease. I'd probably end up seeing "signs" long before they ever presented themselves or perhaps even worsen my condition through the anxiety.
aheilbut 15y ago
It's not irrational at all. If there's not yet any pragmatic benefit to knowing that you have a significant risk of getting a serious disease in the future, it's probably better not to know. You can select which tests to make available to yourself, though, and avoid finding out about things like Parkinson's.
- chroma 15y ago
  Even though there's no current treatment for early-onset Alzheimer's, I'd certainly want to know if I was at risk. I'd live my life much differently if I thought my brain would rot at age 50. Not knowing if you'll get an untreatable disease doesn't stop you from getting an untreatable disease! It just means it'll sneak up on you and force you to make tough decisions with less preparation.
  - cypherpunks01 15y ago
    "I'd live my life much differently if I thought my brain would rot at age 50." What would you be doing so differently? I'm really just curious.
    - buckwild 15y ago
      There's more to life than creating a successful start-up.
    - chroma 15y ago
      It would change my career and retirement planning quite a bit. I'd retire early. I would forget having kids, since I wouldn't be around to support them after their mid-teens. Think about it from the flip side: If you knew you were going to live to age 200 in good health, wouldn't you retire later? Maybe you'd spend more time gallivanting around the world like a recent college grad. Maybe you would wait longer to settle down and have children. Any deviation from the current typical life-span should definitely change your behavior.
  - m0nastic 15y ago
    "I'd live my life much differently if I thought my brain would rot at age 50." Not to get all Carpe Diem on you, but I'd suggest if this is true, you should probably re-evaluate your life. Whether your brain starts to rot at age 50, or you get hit by a bus in two weeks, you don't get to control how much time you have. You can only control what you do with that time.
    - seldo 15y ago
      If you live every day like it's your last then that precludes sensible things like retirement planning. On the other hand, if you know you're not going to be mentally capable of enjoying your retirement anyway, then now is the time to blow that cash.
proexploit 15y ago
I'm not aware of very much in the genetic material 23andme processes that is indicative of a 100% chance of having some future disease. Here's a screenshot of my 23andme dashboard with some of the information removed: http://i.imgur.com/9ViAf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/9ViAf.jpg . As you can see, everything here is based on how much more likely you may be to develop a disease than the average person. Within the page details the specific studies that have given them the information being used in the calculation are cited with links and additional technical information. You can also see that the highest risk factor they've calculated for me is 11.3% or 1.61x the average (in this case, it's Age-related Macular Degeneration). Obviously, it's possible that a person could be given a more significant percentage of a serious condition which raises additional questions. If you are both A) objective enough to firmly grasp that a chance is simply a chance, not a sure outcome and B) not someone who worries a great deal about possible future situations, you might benefit from using 23andme. Otherwise, it may be wise not to purchase the program. For me, I've had an interesting effect of using some of the increased negative risks to help me stop bad habits while at the same time, not using any of the decreased risks as a license to go ahead and live more recklessly in those areas. Hopefully this give you some additional perspective on whether something like this would be right for you.
- zacharypinter 15y ago
  That's actually a great example of how the information could be helpful. If I knew I had a high-risk of Macular Degeneration, I might take some time now to learn Emacspeak or any of the other screen-reader technologies so that I could still do software development in the event that my vision left me.
- pella 15y ago
  be careful, very easy to decode your health information from this screenshot. ( the average risk - is mostly unique value ) ( for example: Restless Legs Syndrome [ avg risk: 2.0% ]) :-)
  - proexploit 15y ago
    Yes, I realized this when making the image. It's certainly something people should consider before posting their results online even in an edited format. For me, blocking the names out was a barrier to discovery for most people (not worth the effort). It's not something I specifically want to share with the world, but there's nothing in that list I would be upset to hear people know either. Certainly a good comment for people to think about.
KVFinn 15y ago
I feel the same way, but there are benefits too. If you know you are high risk for Parkinson's you can get screened earlier and potentially start treatment earlier. And you can do things known to lower your risk, like start drinking caffeine every day.
seldo 15y ago
You've acknowledged it's irrational, so making rational points in rebuttal is clearly a pointless exercise. Nevertheless... If you are already worrying about "obvious" things, wouldn't it be better to know whether or not you have anything to worry about? For instance, if it turns out you have a below-average chance of heart disease, it might make you worry less about your weight. On the other hand, if you discovered that you were (like me) at elevated risk of developing diabetes, wouldn't that provide the extra motivation you need to limit your suger intake and further control your weight? I can't see any situation where having less data would make things demonstrably better -- just more uncertain.
sireat 15y ago
You are not alone in your fear. This question of knowing your fate was well presented in Heinlen's short story Life-line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-Line While I like the idea and being trailblazers must be done by someone you have to keep in mind that 23andMe only do genotyping not full sequencing. In my mind the difference between genotyping and full sequencing is between building a partial array from bunch of if statements and actually copying the array.
wccrawford 15y ago
I paid for 23andme last year during a sale. I have a few markers that are in the 'you'll probably get that' category and as of yet, I haven't stressed out about any of them. However, if I go to the doctor and he says I'm at risk for environment factors for that, I'll know there's some serious shit to think about. And it could save my life! If you understand probability, then the data on 23andme will not destroy your life. It'll merely give you an additional warning sign of things to really pay attention to. And if you choose, you can ignore it altogether.

by pstack 15y ago

akozak 15y ago

Believe me, it's unlikely you'll get anything that dramatic.

arrogant 15y ago

This. I don't even like going to Web MD, in fear of exaggerating a condition or, even worse, synthesizing symptoms. I can't imagine knowing several years ahead of time that I have a high chance of developing this or that unpreventable disease. I'd probably end up seeing "signs" long before they ever presented themselves or perhaps even worsen my condition through the anxiety.

aheilbut 15y ago

It's not irrational at all. If there's not yet any pragmatic benefit to knowing that you have a significant risk of getting a serious disease in the future, it's probably better not to know. You can select which tests to make available to yourself, though, and avoid finding out about things like Parkinson's.

chroma 15y ago
Even though there's no current treatment for early-onset Alzheimer's, I'd certainly want to know if I was at risk. I'd live my life much differently if I thought my brain would rot at age 50. Not knowing if you'll get an untreatable disease doesn't stop you from getting an untreatable disease! It just means it'll sneak up on you and force you to make tough decisions with less preparation.
- cypherpunks01 15y ago
  "I'd live my life much differently if I thought my brain would rot at age 50." What would you be doing so differently? I'm really just curious.
  - buckwild 15y ago
    There's more to life than creating a successful start-up.
  - chroma 15y ago
    It would change my career and retirement planning quite a bit. I'd retire early. I would forget having kids, since I wouldn't be around to support them after their mid-teens. Think about it from the flip side: If you knew you were going to live to age 200 in good health, wouldn't you retire later? Maybe you'd spend more time gallivanting around the world like a recent college grad. Maybe you would wait longer to settle down and have children. Any deviation from the current typical life-span should definitely change your behavior.
- m0nastic 15y ago
  "I'd live my life much differently if I thought my brain would rot at age 50." Not to get all Carpe Diem on you, but I'd suggest if this is true, you should probably re-evaluate your life. Whether your brain starts to rot at age 50, or you get hit by a bus in two weeks, you don't get to control how much time you have. You can only control what you do with that time.
  - seldo 15y ago
    If you live every day like it's your last then that precludes sensible things like retirement planning. On the other hand, if you know you're not going to be mentally capable of enjoying your retirement anyway, then now is the time to blow that cash.

proexploit 15y ago

I'm not aware of very much in the genetic material 23andme processes that is indicative of a 100% chance of having some future disease. Here's a screenshot of my 23andme dashboard with some of the information removed: http://i.imgur.com/9ViAf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/9ViAf.jpg . As you can see, everything here is based on how much more likely you may be to develop a disease than the average person. Within the page details the specific studies that have given them the information being used in the calculation are cited with links and additional technical information. You can also see that the highest risk factor they've calculated for me is 11.3% or 1.61x the average (in this case, it's Age-related Macular Degeneration). Obviously, it's possible that a person could be given a more significant percentage of a serious condition which raises additional questions. If you are both A) objective enough to firmly grasp that a chance is simply a chance, not a sure outcome and B) not someone who worries a great deal about possible future situations, you might benefit from using 23andme. Otherwise, it may be wise not to purchase the program. For me, I've had an interesting effect of using some of the increased negative risks to help me stop bad habits while at the same time, not using any of the decreased risks as a license to go ahead and live more recklessly in those areas. Hopefully this give you some additional perspective on whether something like this would be right for you.

zacharypinter 15y ago
That's actually a great example of how the information could be helpful. If I knew I had a high-risk of Macular Degeneration, I might take some time now to learn Emacspeak or any of the other screen-reader technologies so that I could still do software development in the event that my vision left me.
pella 15y ago
be careful, very easy to decode your health information from this screenshot. ( the average risk - is mostly unique value ) ( for example: Restless Legs Syndrome [ avg risk: 2.0% ]) :-)
- proexploit 15y ago
  Yes, I realized this when making the image. It's certainly something people should consider before posting their results online even in an edited format. For me, blocking the names out was a barrier to discovery for most people (not worth the effort). It's not something I specifically want to share with the world, but there's nothing in that list I would be upset to hear people know either. Certainly a good comment for people to think about.

KVFinn 15y ago

I feel the same way, but there are benefits too. If you know you are high risk for Parkinson's you can get screened earlier and potentially start treatment earlier. And you can do things known to lower your risk, like start drinking caffeine every day.

seldo 15y ago

You've acknowledged it's irrational, so making rational points in rebuttal is clearly a pointless exercise. Nevertheless... If you are already worrying about "obvious" things, wouldn't it be better to know whether or not you have anything to worry about? For instance, if it turns out you have a below-average chance of heart disease, it might make you worry less about your weight. On the other hand, if you discovered that you were (like me) at elevated risk of developing diabetes, wouldn't that provide the extra motivation you need to limit your suger intake and further control your weight? I can't see any situation where having less data would make things demonstrably better -- just more uncertain.

sireat 15y ago

You are not alone in your fear. This question of knowing your fate was well presented in Heinlen's short story Life-line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-Line While I like the idea and being trailblazers must be done by someone you have to keep in mind that 23andMe only do genotyping not full sequencing. In my mind the difference between genotyping and full sequencing is between building a partial array from bunch of if statements and actually copying the array.

wccrawford 15y ago

I paid for 23andme last year during a sale. I have a few markers that are in the 'you'll probably get that' category and as of yet, I haven't stressed out about any of them. However, if I go to the doctor and he says I'm at risk for environment factors for that, I'll know there's some serious shit to think about. And it could save my life! If you understand probability, then the data on 23andme will not destroy your life. It'll merely give you an additional warning sign of things to really pay attention to. And if you choose, you can ignore it altogether.