3 ms·

Very obvious fake science. I 100% guarantee you that if you take an unbiased look at the data, all the variance will be explained by something like age or occup

Very obvious fake science. I 100% guarantee you that if you take an unbiased look at the data, all the variance will be explained by something like age or occupation selection bias. As the article says, ambulance drivers die on average at 64. Even the idea is absurd. "Occupation" is already an extremely vague category which heavily confounds numerous very obvious risk factors. The best statistical methods won't help you make a crisp signal out of pure noise. It also ridiculous how they just handwave that the hypothesis fails for other occupations.

hex4def6 2y ago
Supposedly they compensated for that. They have a "Limitations" section in which they discuss some potential pitfalls, including how most alzheimers deaths start after age 65. I will say, it doesn't inspire confidence when Figure 2 of your paper has an enormous typo on it ("Aircarft [sic] Pilots"). I'm not really convinced personally, especially as stuff like Aircarft[sic] pilots seems to be significantly above the average occupation's risk factor. But they also tend to live significantly longer (78 ish?). It seems to me that navigation is still a reasonable amount of a pilots workload -- just look at the effort to navigate the taxiways at a big airport for example. A bigger factor in my view would be quality of care -- an airline pilot probably makes significantly more than a taxi driver, and is more likely to have good medical care, in which someone is more attentive to their situation.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  I have serious doubts about the statistical controls you can do in the presence of very obvious and large confounders. Especially when the thesis doesn't seem to generalize particularly well (as they admit). Is there something cab drivers do, which is radically different from the numerous other driving occupations? Personally I find these very broad studies extremely uninteresting. Without making any accusations, having large,very broad datasets, make it very easy to find something, when there is just noise. What makes me despise it even more are the headlines it generates.

hex4def6 2y ago

Supposedly they compensated for that. They have a "Limitations" section in which they discuss some potential pitfalls, including how most alzheimers deaths start after age 65. I will say, it doesn't inspire confidence when Figure 2 of your paper has an enormous typo on it ("Aircarft [sic] Pilots"). I'm not really convinced personally, especially as stuff like Aircarft[sic] pilots seems to be significantly above the average occupation's risk factor. But they also tend to live significantly longer (78 ish?). It seems to me that navigation is still a reasonable amount of a pilots workload -- just look at the effort to navigate the taxiways at a big airport for example. A bigger factor in my view would be quality of care -- an airline pilot probably makes significantly more than a taxi driver, and is more likely to have good medical care, in which someone is more attentive to their situation.

constantcrying 2y ago
I have serious doubts about the statistical controls you can do in the presence of very obvious and large confounders. Especially when the thesis doesn't seem to generalize particularly well (as they admit). Is there something cab drivers do, which is radically different from the numerous other driving occupations? Personally I find these very broad studies extremely uninteresting. Without making any accusations, having large,very broad datasets, make it very easy to find something, when there is just noise. What makes me despise it even more are the headlines it generates.