4 ms·

[1] Not impressed by this study of only Israeli men over 2006 to 2019. For every age range, the number of subjects went up during the study period. Overall, th

[1] Not impressed by this study of only Israeli men over 2006 to 2019. For every age range, the number of subjects went up during the study period. Overall, the study ended with about twice the number of subjects in the last period than the first. Look at Chart A. The error bars are noticeably smaller for later periods compared to the earlier periods. Something else is going on in this data that they are not accounting for. Probably some combination of either the tests were changed, or the criteria for ordering the test were loosened over the study period. The other stuff you wrote is just the same right-wing navel-gazing that I've heard over and over since the 1980's.

rglover 4y ago
I knew this would be your response. You met someone who doesn't capitulate to your manipulation, took the time to cite things, and you're predictably "not impressed" even going so far as to refute the source I gave with "something else is going on" (conspiratorial thinking) or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed.
- marshray 4y ago
  It's a bad study and I'd be willing to tell the researchers that to their face. "Something else is going on" is not "conspiratorial thinking" when it comes to analyzing data. Systematic biases in data is the normal and expected state of affairs. > or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I didn't say your sources were "RWNG", I said the "other stuff you wrote" was. The sources could all be good, and still not actually support your conclusions. > I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter > and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed. I've been having good discussions on Twitter Spaces lately. Feel free to connect over there if you'd like to discuss this further.
  - rglover 4y ago
    > It's a bad study and I'd be willing to tell the researchers that to their face. What are your standards for a good study, then? You understand that this basically makes anything I give you a non-starter as its validity is wholly based on your opinion of it, right? > I said the "other stuff you wrote" was. Fair, my mistake. But, to your point, it's not navel gazing it's objective reality (whether you like that reality or not is irrelevant). Empirically, the problems you encounter today are in far greater numbers than they were in the past and those problems all track with decisions made in government (either directly or indirectly). Frankly, just based on your initial response to me, I don't think a conversation would be terribly productive for either of us.
    - marshray 4y ago
      > What are your standards for a good study, then? Prospective. For example, they decide in advance to test Ts for a randomly-selected group of men. This study reads as basically "We queried our healthcare system database and made up the rules as we went along." For example: * How did they choose the date ranges 1/2006 through 3/2019? * How did they decide to divide the dates into four ranges of 4, 3, 3, and 4 years each? * Why did they include "only the first blood sample taken from each patient"? * Why were there 38,701 subjects with an age measurement but only 22,169 that recorded a BMI in 2016-9? * Why did the number of subjects double over the course of the study period? Did more patients enter the healthcare system? Did they, say, open new treatment facilities to attract different clientele? I mean, it's not worthless, it can be useful to put the data out there for meta-analysis. But on its own it should not be used to draw a conclusion. And so on. > You understand that this basically makes anything I give you a non-starter as its validity is wholly based on your opinion of it, right? You're right - it's my opinion and I do lean on my personal experience when considering others' arguments. > it's objective reality (whether you like that reality or not is irrelevant). Some of the data may reflect objective reality, but many of your conclusions do not. > Empirically, the problems you encounter today are in far greater numbers than they were in the past Yes, but this statement has been true my entire life. Everyone agrees our world gets more populous and more challenging almost every year. The statement may be true, but so broad that it conveys little meaning. > and those problems all track with decisions made in government (either directly or indirectly). This conclusion is not well supported. Try to describe how you have considered and rejected other possible explanations for the observed phenomena. > Frankly, just based on your initial response to me, I don't think a conversation would be terribly productive for either of us. Go back and read what you wrote again. You mention 'politics' and/or 'government' in every post. You cannot even discuss whether or not a hormone level is declining without fitting it within your ideological framework. Take care :-)

rglover 4y ago

I knew this would be your response. You met someone who doesn't capitulate to your manipulation, took the time to cite things, and you're predictably "not impressed" even going so far as to refute the source I gave with "something else is going on" (conspiratorial thinking) or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed.

marshray 4y ago
It's a bad study and I'd be willing to tell the researchers that to their face. "Something else is going on" is not "conspiratorial thinking" when it comes to analyzing data. Systematic biases in data is the normal and expected state of affairs. > or the source being "right-wing navel-gazing" (when all of the sources are either published papers, politically neutral statistics, or mainstream media outlets). I didn't say your sources were "RWNG", I said the "other stuff you wrote" was. The sources could all be good, and still not actually support your conclusions. > I made a point to look at your HN profile and subsequently your Twitter > and you're clearly ideologically overwhelmed. I've been having good discussions on Twitter Spaces lately. Feel free to connect over there if you'd like to discuss this further.
- rglover 4y ago
  > It's a bad study and I'd be willing to tell the researchers that to their face. What are your standards for a good study, then? You understand that this basically makes anything I give you a non-starter as its validity is wholly based on your opinion of it, right? > I said the "other stuff you wrote" was. Fair, my mistake. But, to your point, it's not navel gazing it's objective reality (whether you like that reality or not is irrelevant). Empirically, the problems you encounter today are in far greater numbers than they were in the past and those problems all track with decisions made in government (either directly or indirectly). Frankly, just based on your initial response to me, I don't think a conversation would be terribly productive for either of us.
  - marshray 4y ago
    > What are your standards for a good study, then? Prospective. For example, they decide in advance to test Ts for a randomly-selected group of men. This study reads as basically "We queried our healthcare system database and made up the rules as we went along." For example: * How did they choose the date ranges 1/2006 through 3/2019? * How did they decide to divide the dates into four ranges of 4, 3, 3, and 4 years each? * Why did they include "only the first blood sample taken from each patient"? * Why were there 38,701 subjects with an age measurement but only 22,169 that recorded a BMI in 2016-9? * Why did the number of subjects double over the course of the study period? Did more patients enter the healthcare system? Did they, say, open new treatment facilities to attract different clientele? I mean, it's not worthless, it can be useful to put the data out there for meta-analysis. But on its own it should not be used to draw a conclusion. And so on. > You understand that this basically makes anything I give you a non-starter as its validity is wholly based on your opinion of it, right? You're right - it's my opinion and I do lean on my personal experience when considering others' arguments. > it's objective reality (whether you like that reality or not is irrelevant). Some of the data may reflect objective reality, but many of your conclusions do not. > Empirically, the problems you encounter today are in far greater numbers than they were in the past Yes, but this statement has been true my entire life. Everyone agrees our world gets more populous and more challenging almost every year. The statement may be true, but so broad that it conveys little meaning. > and those problems all track with decisions made in government (either directly or indirectly). This conclusion is not well supported. Try to describe how you have considered and rejected other possible explanations for the observed phenomena. > Frankly, just based on your initial response to me, I don't think a conversation would be terribly productive for either of us. Go back and read what you wrote again. You mention 'politics' and/or 'government' in every post. You cannot even discuss whether or not a hormone level is declining without fitting it within your ideological framework. Take care :-)