3 ms·

What Are Friends for? A Longer Life

26 points by robg 18y ago

asciilifeform 18y ago
Why is no one questioning which way the causation arrow is pointing in such studies?
- jnovek 18y ago
  Well, take this statement -- "In 2006, a study of nearly 3,000 nurses with breast cancer found that women without close friends were four times as likely to die from the disease as women with 10 or more friends." The results cited in the article seem to only imply a correlation. It seems like the author of the article implied causation to add a bit of journalistic flair. After all, it would be a much less interesting article if it simply stated correlations.
  - dejb 18y ago
    "In 2006, a study of nearly 3,000 nurses with breast cancer found that women without close friends were four times as likely to die from the disease as women with 10 or more friends." You could always argue that there was a common cause to both the lack of friends and the lack of survival. Perhaps you'd call it a 'life force' until you worked out the details. Perhaps there is a gene that manifests as both solitude seeking and reduced survival options. Whatever the case I think a lot of people would prefer articles like this to at least mention that there are other possibilities rather than spending time on fluffy and frankly uninteresting anecdotes.
    - Ardit20 18y ago
      You seem to be in denial although your point about correlation not meaning causation is well taken. However if we take the case of smoking we may say smoking does not cause cancer it only seems to be an ingredient which is found when people die of cancer. I mean technically correlation does not imply causation, but practically in some cases as the one the article is talking about it kinda does. Sure enough there might be something else which causes people to seek friends and that very same thing causes people to die earlier, however what we know is that having friends is a good thing and it seems they prolong your life. Now the way I formulated the last sentence it sounds like correlation but really it implies causation.
      - eru 18y ago
        That's common sense. Careful: Common sense does not always hold up in science.
      - whughes 18y ago
        I don't think smoking is a similar case, because we have a pretty clear-cut explanation as to how smoking can cause cancer. It's not just being inferred from smokers getting cancer statistically.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  because to most people "causation" is a confusing concept in the first place.
christofd 18y ago
Why are all these NYT top articles showing up on here? I can read the NYT myself. Don't really need HN to mention them. Just my two cents...
- mariana 18y ago
  that, and the fact that is needed an account to access nytimes... post a free link please.
  - whughes 18y ago
    Register the account using a throwaway email address. NY Times is one of the most linked sites here, and the content is certainly worth the small amount of effort.
- jcl 18y ago
  The same can be said of many sites... s/NYT/engadget, techcrunch, etc. If you have a particular set of sites that you don't want to see, you can use Xichekolas' Greasemonkey script to filter them out. It adds a configuration "toolkit" link to the HN page header. (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25039 http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25039)

26 points by robg 18y ago

asciilifeform 18y ago

Why is no one questioning which way the causation arrow is pointing in such studies?

jnovek 18y ago
Well, take this statement -- "In 2006, a study of nearly 3,000 nurses with breast cancer found that women without close friends were four times as likely to die from the disease as women with 10 or more friends." The results cited in the article seem to only imply a correlation. It seems like the author of the article implied causation to add a bit of journalistic flair. After all, it would be a much less interesting article if it simply stated correlations.
- dejb 18y ago
  "In 2006, a study of nearly 3,000 nurses with breast cancer found that women without close friends were four times as likely to die from the disease as women with 10 or more friends." You could always argue that there was a common cause to both the lack of friends and the lack of survival. Perhaps you'd call it a 'life force' until you worked out the details. Perhaps there is a gene that manifests as both solitude seeking and reduced survival options. Whatever the case I think a lot of people would prefer articles like this to at least mention that there are other possibilities rather than spending time on fluffy and frankly uninteresting anecdotes.
  - Ardit20 18y ago
    You seem to be in denial although your point about correlation not meaning causation is well taken. However if we take the case of smoking we may say smoking does not cause cancer it only seems to be an ingredient which is found when people die of cancer. I mean technically correlation does not imply causation, but practically in some cases as the one the article is talking about it kinda does. Sure enough there might be something else which causes people to seek friends and that very same thing causes people to die earlier, however what we know is that having friends is a good thing and it seems they prolong your life. Now the way I formulated the last sentence it sounds like correlation but really it implies causation.
    - eru 18y ago
      That's common sense. Careful: Common sense does not always hold up in science.
    - whughes 18y ago
      I don't think smoking is a similar case, because we have a pretty clear-cut explanation as to how smoking can cause cancer. It's not just being inferred from smokers getting cancer statistically.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
because to most people "causation" is a confusing concept in the first place.

christofd 18y ago

Why are all these NYT top articles showing up on here? I can read the NYT myself. Don't really need HN to mention them. Just my two cents...

mariana 18y ago
that, and the fact that is needed an account to access nytimes... post a free link please.
- whughes 18y ago
  Register the account using a throwaway email address. NY Times is one of the most linked sites here, and the content is certainly worth the small amount of effort.
jcl 18y ago
The same can be said of many sites... s/NYT/engadget, techcrunch, etc. If you have a particular set of sites that you don't want to see, you can use Xichekolas' Greasemonkey script to filter them out. It adds a configuration "toolkit" link to the HN page header. (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25039 http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25039)