131–140 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, except if you are being bullied and nobody steps in to stop it.
Are you saying that doesn't happen in Scouts? Because that happens in Scouts.
I was in scouts and cadets here in New Zealand when I was a teenager and continue to spend a fair amount of time in the outdoors (I also did Outward Bound when I was 16), and I can definitely relate to the researcher's findings. When you're 2 days walk from civilisation, it's pissing down with rain, and you're cold, wet, hungry, and tired, you get a different perspective on life and the "soft" challenges that you fac…
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
It might be one of the cases where correlation doesn't imply causation. For an objective study, we would need to assign children to groups randomly. Otherwise, we can miss various obscure selection effects. (For example, if children who are more likely to be scouts, are also likely to be from a particular socioeconomic background).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, the bias is that all of the scouts came from households that decided to enroll their kid/s in the scouts. This is not a joke, and there is a difference in value systems and other factors that cut across cliché dimensions like socio-economic status.
The study lead was interviewed on R4 this morning, and asserted they they'd controlled for this.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
They're comparing with people who went to other groups, and concluding that there is a quality of scouts and guides in particular that is protective.
I do wonder if there is still selection bias, since you may choose to avoid certain types of group, and attend others.
I'm going to say that the study probably did uncover the truth. I was in the USA Boy Scouts, and one thing I noticed (and disagree with) is the unspoken limitations placed on participants. For instance, what's the highest assignment one can have as a Boy Scout? Junior Assistant Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster is always very firmly in control. In Scouts, I learned not to expect to rise to the top, indeed, not to even hav…
It sounds like you were in a Boy Scout troop being run with a Cub Scout mindset, rather than one operating according to the official rules and goals. I've never seen JASM described as the highest job assignment a scout can hold; most people would say that's the Senior Patrol Leader, while JASM is a transitional job for experienced scouts to learn how to step back from being a direct leader to being a mentor who helps enable the boys to lead their troop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno why you're getting down voted as this is a clear point to make. A fun game I like to play when I read these sorts of things in the news is to reverse the causation implied by what I'm reading. Often times it make more sense. In this case: Those with better mental health are more likely to do Scouts and guides in their youth.
How is this any better than the original hypothesis and conclusion?
Conversely, looking at the source journal article, the researchers did actually check for confounders in several ways, giving some credence to the idea of a causative effect of scouts participation on lifetime mental health.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno why you're getting down voted as this is a clear point to make. A fun game I like to play when I read these sorts of things in the news is to reverse the causation implied by what I'm reading. Often times it make more sense. In this case: Those with better mental health are more likely to do Scouts and guides in their youth.
He's getting downvoted because he's short quip is not a useful addition to the discussion. If you already know that correlation != causation, then his quip is useless. If you don't, then those two words are also useless to you. Either way it's a useless post and if he can't be bothered to explain more, then don't bother making the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this any better than the original hypothesis and conclusion?
It's not - it points out that the two conclusions have equal supporting evidence, but different implications. Hence, based on the information in the article, there's no reason to expect that on average, a child joining scouts would improve their lifetime mental health. Conversely, looking at the source journal article, the researchers did actually check for confounders in several ways, giving some credence to the ide…
>This study used a prospective cohort design, controlling for many of the factors that might affect participation in Scouts–Guides and later life mental health. Most of these measures were collected in the appropriate cohort sweep. The possibility of residual confounding, particularly due to missing or poorly measured socioeconomic variables, was further examined using three methods, a negative exposure control, an exploration of ‘dose–response’ and a measure of differing regional rates of Scouts–Guide attendance. Although there was no evidence of a dose–response relationship, the other methods supported the plausibility of a causal relationship.