Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
theatlantic.com
Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#2This happens when you have a boatload of "educated" people with degrees in psychology/neuroscience who have to do "research." There's something like 100,000 new psych grads each year - and there's only so many coffee shops.
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#3This happens when you have a boatload of "educated" people with degrees in psychology/neuroscience who have to do "research." There's something like 100,000 new psych grads each year - and there's only so many coffee shops.
Please don't post shallow dismissals to HN, and please don't snark. These are two of the site guidelines. If you'd read them, and follow them when commenting here, we'd be grateful.
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#4The Slatestar Codex blog post linked in the article is a much more entertaining read, I think:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#5Even you can't believe there is a hen in world's biggest animals
See the video
how they looks and what they do
https://cutt.ly/1rOU7Q
Very funny dog using toilet Try to control your laugh http://bit.ly/2LVSNSG
Cute dog doing exercise like humans http://bit.ly/2Jq3rz1
Funny gorilla acting like humans see his video on link below http://bit.ly/2JmTNxr
Best way to get rid from dark spots on face just follow this https://zoomtips.blogspot.com/2019/05/Dark-spots.html
Funny panda is playing with friends they are sho cute http://bit.ly/2JvDQF4
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#6Statistics. Garbage in, garbage out.
This shows why you have to explicitly quantify statistical power and error model for your study design. Tools are good, but not good enough to do it for you.
Then, do calculate effect size instead of a binary answer. You will get answer with a digit in fifth place with a proper size unbiased sample. Note that for proper genome study, the sample size for observational studies is in tend of thousands barring inbred model studies. (Mice or men, with easily detectable disease process.)
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#7The Slatestar Codex blog post linked in the article is a much more entertaining read, I think: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...
Scott is always a good read, and rarely not entertaining. The Atlantic’s piece is a bit less snarky, but has other redeeming factors.
It is quite obvious when comparing the two that a journalist’s first instinct is always to call a bunch of experts and incorporate their views. It’s also laudable that the author rejects the easy cynicism of accusing these scientists of individual intentional deception, and instead redirects our scorn onto the publish-or-perish dynamic.
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#8It's just naive to pin something as complex as depression on a single variable (but that's Popperian scientificism for you)
Now it might be that the 1st study identified an effect on a (very specific) subpopulation and in the bigger study case that subpopulation is not present or not identifiable. But who knows
Now of course it's not wrong to study a certain gene, but to go "all in on" a very narrow study path is stupid. Now, if on the course of the depression studies they found this gene had everything to do with a different disease that would be "p-hacking" or something, right? RIGHT?
More statistical power and "rigour" won't lead research anywhere because it's not the studies that were necessarily flawed, it's that the effects might be small, or dependent on a chain of other factors, so unless the effect of a single factor is predominant it might not even matter (as an isolated factor).
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#9The Slatestar Codex blog post linked in the article is a much more entertaining read, I think: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...
[deleted]
Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations
#10Odd that this article cites Scott Alexander as if that is the name of a real psychiatrist,
> “What bothers me isn’t just that people said [the gene] mattered and it didn’t,” wrote the psychiatrist Scott Alexander in a widely shared blog post.
Scott Alexander is the pen name of a person running a blog who claims to be a psychiatrist, and AFAIK, his authenticity is not proven due to his anonymity.