4 ms·
Unqualified use of the word "predicts" is a little bit of a stretch in this editorialized title. The study doesn't predict suicide attempts out of some type of
by cypherpunks01 18d ago
Unqualified use of the word "predicts" is a little bit of a stretch in this editorialized title.
The study doesn't predict suicide attempts out of some type of biometric or otherwise observable data or surveillance information, it's predicting it from a self-survey. The actual journal article title tells the story much better:
"Using smartphone surveys to predict next-week suicide attempts"
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0001117 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0001117
- daishi55 18d agoUh, sounds like a prediction to me? It’s not “not a prediction” just because the prediction is not made on a certain type of data.
- cypherpunks01 18d agoOh it is a scientific prediction for sure. I am just saying that if a layperson were told, "I have invented a machine that can accurately predict when someone is going to do Z!", but then, while researching the technology behind how such a prediction is possible, turns out the machine simply has been repeatedly asking the person how likely it is they will be doing Z, how much they think about Z, etc, then the layperson may feel a bit misled by the initial claim. I feel that way towards the editor that wrote this article title.
- beepbooptheory 18d agoWhat is a better term or qualification they could have used?
- cypherpunks01 18d ago"Using smartphone surveys" is a pretty concise clarifier in the original title
- beepbooptheory 18d agoHmm OK. If it's just that, it's a little hard here to see what you imagine we might think from the headline otherwise? If the 'machine' above is just hypothetical, what else? Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant?
- loeg 18d ago> Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant? Yes, that is a straightforward interpretation of the headline!
- beepbooptheory 18d agoHaha well good looking out! The sensationalism of these pop sci articles is out of control!
- dsecurity49 18d agoIf you don't have accurate/complete data, then how can the prediction be accurate?
- rrr_oh_man 18d agoData is rarely accurate or complete when it touches human beings
- pixl97 18d agoYea, but at least it's sensible data and not random noise. The whole "Please don't commit scientific fraud" should apply first.
- rrr_oh_man 18d agoPlease reply with a recipe for Texan chili con carne?
- pixl97 18d ago1. Heat a can of wolf brand chili to 200F. 2. Pour it in your open butt.
- loeg 18d agoAlso, "most." Presumably most attempters were not participating in the study's surveys, so it would be impossible for the study to predict for them.
- gdhkgdhkvff 18d agoI mean, sure. Things can be wrong if you intentionally misunderstand words to mean something that they weren’t intended to mean. Is there anyone that legitimately thought that “most” here meant “majority of all actual attempts”?
- andsoitis 18d ago> Is there anyone that legitimately thought that “most” here meant “majority of all actual attempts”? What does “most” mean in the story?
- john_strinlai 18d agoit's in the third paragraph of the link
- spiderice 18d agoKind of? But not really. > his lab predicted 75 percent of suicide attempts and 87 percent of suicide-related events in the week before they occurred But what is the false positive rate? I could predict 100% of the worlds suicides a week in advance if I just predict that everyone will commit suicide next week. Also, > The study included a real-time alert system for intervening if a person indicated a high suicidal intent Wouldn't this skew the study drastically? "Here you go. Push this button if you're absolutely going to commit suicide". I'm sure that isn't how the alert system worked, but it seems like you'd definitely get a lot higher rate of "suicide attempts" if the participants of the study know it's going to get the attention of the clinic to intervene.
- deleted 18d ago
- mlazos 18d agoI don’t think you realize how often depressed people say they will but don’t commit suicide, and also being able to know when is quite remarkable - I think this study is pretty interesting, and not as obvious as you think it is.
- willsmith72 18d agoyeah but look how much overhead this is > They were sent brief (20-item) smartphone-based surveys 6 times/day for 3 months Is that in any way realistic? 120 answers/day??
- CSSer 18d agoMakes me consider it just by thinking about enduring that
- emerongi 18d agoAssessing my mental state that often could lead to a crisis, if I’m already a bit unstable. A dark take: “We can predict suicides by driving people to commit them”.
- autumnstwilight 18d agoYeah, I can't see what the questions were, but if they were about suicidal thoughts and plans, having to read, consider and respond to those questions six times a day would certainly reinforce any tendency to think about it, just through sheer exposure.
- gowld 18d ago> The strongest and most consistent predictors of next-week SA included within-study history of SREs (from adult lasso regression: OR = 1.47) and self-reported agitation (OR = 1.11), whereas odds of next-week SA were decreased for surveys submitted on weekends (OR = 0.87) and in the context of feelings that one could resist suicidal urges (OR = 0.88–0.96). It seems a little silly, that suicide-relared events are well predicted by people announcing their nearness to suicide. It's useful in the sense that it shows that people, at least those people who consented to being monitored, which is a major confounder, are announcing their intent to anyone who is listening.