3 ms·

It's "using the research," which (if the research is unreliable) is just as bad whether it's for specific people or to make broad statements about an issue. If

It's "using the research," which (if the research is unreliable) is just as bad whether it's for specific people or to make broad statements about an issue. If you want to direct resources to groups "likely to experience violence" based on other statistics anyway, then you don't need this type of research to do it. And if you're going to use this type of research in support of that, then it is just as important that it's accurate as it would be if you were using it at an individual level. The parent comment called out "puny sample sizes." That would be relevant to the "statistical purposes" suggested by the child comment.

Dylan16807 2y ago
> It's "using the research," which (if the research is unreliable) is just as bad whether it's for specific people or to make broad statements about an issue. It's bad in a very different way, with a different level of impact. And there are ethical issues with that kind of use even if the research is right which don't exist with the broad statements they were suggesting. > If you want to direct resources to groups "likely to experience violence" based on other statistics anyway, then you don't need this type of research to do it. You do if you're trying to convince people to allocate the money, because longer lasting damage makes it more important. > And if you're going to use this type of research in support of that, then it is just as important that it's accurate as it would be if you were using it at an individual level. It's not. The consequences of screwing up individual diagnoses are much worse than the consequences of a funding campaign having a false premise.