Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#11

Post by wallace_f »

AstralStorm wrote: post #6

Statistics. 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…

It's amazing how convincing statistics are--even for supposed experts--and not just for the reason you elaborate on.

In 2019, they really are the best way to lie.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#12

Post by Lazare »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #10

Odd 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.

His identity is hardly a deep secret; anyone who really cares can find it out, and verify his credentials.

(Not that those credentials are really relevant here, no?)

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#13

Post by atomical »

Lazare wrote: post #12
unityByFreedom wrote: post #10

Odd 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.

His identity is hardly a deep secret; anyone who really cares can find it out, and verify his credentials. (Not that those credentials are really relevant here, no?)

I care about reading something written by a professional instead of a Tim Ferriss type. I've found several suspect items in his blog articles. I would like to know his credentials.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#14

Post by raxxorrax »

raverbashing wrote: post #8

It'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 stu…

> that's Popperian scientificism

I believe his criticisms would be very close to yours. For me, this is on the border between medicine, anthropology and in general social sciences. I wouldn't list hubris as a strength for anyone in these fields to underline popular prejudices.

But aside from that, even if statistics are vigorously checked for correctness, it still leaves a lot of room to get different interpretations.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#15

Post by lm28469 »

wallace_f wrote: post #11
AstralStorm wrote: post #6

Statistics. 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…

It's amazing how convincing statistics are--even for supposed experts--and not just for the reason you elaborate on. In 2019, they really are the best way to lie.

Science became a new religion. Instead of saying "shut up god made it that way" you say "shut up science says it's that way".

You can find hundred of studies to support your arguments, no matter what they are, it's even easier if you don't actually read the studies and stop at the summaries made by popular medias.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#16

Post by fromthestart »

raverbashing wrote: post #8

It'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 stu…

>It's just naive to pin something as complex as depression on a single variable

Why? There are other complex diseases with purely genetic causes, e.g. Huntington's Disease; depression isn't necessarily different. Hindsight is 20/20.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#17

Post by ekianjo »

lm28469 wrote: post #15
wallace_f wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how convincing statistics are--even for supposed experts--and not just for the reason you elaborate on. In 2019, they really are the best way to lie.

Science became a new religion. Instead of saying "shut up god made it that way" you say "shut up science says it's that way". You can find hundred of studies to support your arguments, no matter what they are, it's even easier if you don't actually read the studies and stop at the summaries made by popular medias.

what you refer to is not Science,its pseudoscience. Pretty much any crap gets published these days, review standards are abysmal and there is hardly any replication.

Only thru replication can you actually claim there is Science.

Re: Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations

#19

Post by Angostura »

lm28469 wrote: post #15
wallace_f wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how convincing statistics are--even for supposed experts--and not just for the reason you elaborate on. In 2019, they really are the best way to lie.

Science became a new religion. Instead of saying "shut up god made it that way" you say "shut up science says it's that way". You can find hundred of studies to support your arguments, no matter what they are, it's even easier if you don't actually read the studies and stop at the summaries made by popular medias.

> You can find hundred of studies to support your arguments, no matter what they are.

I think that simply incorrect, assuming 'studies' != Youtube videos. I know because I've been involved in internet arguments where I've gone looking for studies and found my own argument is incorrect/poorly supported.

Post reply on HN