Your personal opinion does not trump scientific studies

[Brass Scorpion]

I hear some of the ridiculous arguments shot down here all too often, so I found this article particularly amusing:

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/05/your-personal-opinion-does-not-trump.html


Your personal opinion does not trump scientific studies
As a scientist, one of my big pet peeves is when someone tries to use a personal anecdote to disprove a scientific study. "Cigarette are bad for you?! But my grandpa chain smoked until he was 96, and he was healthy as an ox!"

Great for your grandpa! ...But that's irrelevant.

The whole purpose of science is to reduce our biases. Looking at your sample size of one (Grandpa) is going to lead you to the wrong conclusion about what's going on with smoking. Your grandpa was an outlier - and while that is interesting, the vast majority of people suffer harmful effects from smoking.

But my bigger pet peeve is when someone's culture, personal opinion, or political belief stands in the way of them accepting science.

For example, during our unit on aggression in my Social Psychology class, we talked about cultural causes for aggression. One example was the Southern Culture of Honor. People who grow up in this culture see a perceived insult as a threat to their ego, which increases testosterone levels* and violent cognitions, and can lead to acts of violence. Southern cities and states have much higher White homicide rates than those populated by northerners**, and in Southern states homicides exceed suicides.

Effects of Insults on Testosterone levels in Southerner and Northerner Participants

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-dxg8gReUqE/S-n-IdOEDAI/AAAAAAAAAzM/kEBuywFAv_k/s400/SouthernInsult.jpg

When I mentioned this in a tweet, some of my Southern followers got angry and said it wasn't true, and tried to provide anecdotal evidence about how kind and helpful Southerners are. Your neighbors may be sweet, but that doesn't negate an overall trend. Scientific studies aren't saying that all southerners are homicidal maniacs. Though you know, getting angry at a perceived insult doesn't exactly help your cause...

Another topic within aggression that really riles people up is spanking. Numerous studies have been done showing that spanking children increases antisocial*** and aggressive**** behavior. But when people who have been spanked or spank their children hear about this, they get very defensive. I can't recall the number of times I've heard "Well I was spanked, and I turned out fine!" or "I spanked my kids and now they're little angels!"

I'm sorry, but 1) Your specific experience does not negate the average response seen in hundreds of families, and 2) Your evaluation isn't necessarily correct. You could very well have had an increase in antisocial or aggressive behavior, but you didn't have a psychologist assessing your behavior, did you? I'd really like to see a psychological study on why people like to defend spanking. Do they hate thinking that their parents did something wrong? Do they hate having to come up with a better (and possibly less easy) disciplinary action?

And last, but not least: political beliefs that get in the way of accepting science. The one that bugs me the most are feminists who are such huge supporters of female equality that they simply cannot accept that males and females do differ in certain ways. For one, you kind of can't ignore that (biologically typical) males and females differ physically - we kind of have different reproductive organs and chromosomes. We also have different secondary sex characteristics - males are going to be slightly stronger and larger on average.

And because our biology differs, it's not insane to suggest our psychology differs. Saying men are better in some areas and women are better in others does not mean one is superior to another. Saying men may have certain mating strategies and females may have different ones does not mean one is morally superior, or that either are things we should actually do - humans are not simply slaves to their biology, after all. There are differences between the sexes in almost every species where there are two different sexes - humans aren't exempt. To deny these differences because they don't jibe with your political beliefs is simply unscientific.

Now, I know I'm not perfect. There have definitely been times where I've been skeptical of a study when I personally didn't like the results - it's human nature (especially when the study is saying something delicious is bad for your health). But the thing about being a scientist is reducing our biases as much as possible. So next time you find yourself giving anecdotal evidence, remember: Your personal opinion may be an interesting new hypothesis, but until you do a study of your own, it does not trump previous scientific research.

* Cohen et al (1996) Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South
**Myers (2008) Social Psychology
*** Strauss et al (1997)
**** Taylor (2010) in Pediatrics

[Drunkencorgimaster]

You are on to something here.

There does seem to be an odd sort of personality type out there who believes that what really matters is the intensity of his/her belief, as opposed to the logic or evidence behind it. You see this in politics, religion, warhammer...etc.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Oh yeah... I forgot. I agree that white Southerners ARE more agressive than people in other parts of the country. On the other hand I do think they are also more likely to help you fix a flat tire or give you a lift though. I'll give 'em that. You could be on fire on a sidewalk in Minnesota and people would politely step around you.

[wittdooley]

Apparently there are people in Pittsburgh that wouldn't pee on you to put you out, either ;)

[DrLove42]

I just imagine this study being done in a lab...

"Right....peaceful - How is the weather?. And now time for insult setting....Your mama's so fat she had to get baptised at Sea World"

Sure to some people the idea of strapping Americans down, strapping electrodes to their brains and insulting them is a good days work...

[Necron2.0]

What I hate is when people use science to try and prove a moral point.

"See?!! Children who are spanked are more aggressive!!"

"Yesssss ... ? So my child can kick your childs arse. And twenty years from now, my child will be the CEO of the company your child is wage enslaved to. What's your point?"

I believe science should be restricted to issues of fact, while concerns of morality should be left to something better suited for making those determinations.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

apparently there are people in pittsburgh that wouldn't pee on you to put you out, either ;)

lol. :)

[Lord Azaghul]

What I hate is when people use science to try and prove a moral point.

"See?!! Children who are spanked are more aggressive!!"

"Yesssss ... ? So my child can kick your childs arse. And twenty years from now, my child will be the CEO of the company your child is wage enslaved to. What's your point?"

I believe science should be restricted to issues of fact, while concerns of morality should be left to something better suited for making those determinations.



THIS

Most of these so called scientific study 'thingies' are either A: strictly corillary. (look up 'increased ice cream sales cause rape') Or B: 'guided' studies engineered for specific results (do you' like' john or do you 'not not like' john)
- ie really no different then most 'scientific polls' found every day at your local baised news feed.

Consider how many of these ‘studies’ are build on poor assumitions, rather then facts.
Now I’m not knocking education and learning, I’m knocking manipulation of scentific methods and principle to ‘prove’ someone else ethics.

[eldargal]

Poor studies are a huge problem, particularly in medicine (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124).

A lot of scientists don't seem to get taught that correlation isn't causation. Having said that, science should trump anecdotal evidence. I could go on a long rant about why interest groups are corrupting science but I won't. Because its half past five in the morning and I can't be bothered.:rolleyes:

[Drew da Destroya]

Yeah, that's cool and all, but there was this one time where anecdotal evidence totally trumped scientific evidence. I mean, you had to be there, but it definitely happened for sure, and so that means that my opinion is clearly correct.

Now, we need to conduct a study exploring the link between Increased Testosterone Levels and Gun Ownership.

[DarkLink]

I don't know exactly how this study was conducted, but I can refer to another similar study that backs this up as well, but with something more direct than testosterone levels. Basically, college students were called in for an interview, and the interviewer acted rude and occasionally insulting. As the students were leaving down a strategically narrow hallway, a local bouncer hired for the study walked towards them aggressively. Most people that came from outside the south stepped aside and let the bouncer pass from 10-15 steps away. The southerners, however, would almost collide with him before stepping aside.




"See?!! Children who are spanked are more aggressive!!"

"Yesssss ... ? So my child can kick your childs arse. And twenty years from now, my child will be the CEO of the company your child is wage enslaved to. What's your point?"

I believe science should be restricted to issues of fact, while concerns of morality should be left to something better suited for making those determinations.

Well, if you want fact then aggressive (and more importantly antisocial) kids are at higher risk for a whole lot of negative things. Correlation or causation is academic, there is something going on there. Don't be so proud about raising a good fighter when he spends time in jail for committing some random act of violence.



A lot of scientists don't seem to get taught that correlation isn't causation. Having said that, science should trump anecdotal evidence.

The media doesn't exactly help, either. There was a news story the other day about how the internet "causes memory loss". Never mind that it also "makes you way better at juggling a lot of different tasks".

[Drew da Destroya]

The media doesn't exactly help, either. There was a news story the other day about how the internet "causes memory loss". Never mind that it also "makes you way better at juggling a lot of different tasks".

The problem for me is that those multiple tasks rarely involve what I should be actually doing. Like, I should be working right now. Instead, I'm talking to some friends on Skype, posting in the Lounge of Lost Souls, listening to Pandora, and I was just checking out a webcomic.

My inbox, however, continues to fill up.

[Necron2.0]

Well, if you want fact then aggressive (and more importantly antisocial) kids are at higher risk for a whole lot of negative things. Correlation or causation is academic, there is something going on there. Don't be so proud about raising a good fighter when he spends time in jail for committing some random act of violence.

<*Shrug*> If she's as devious as me, she won't be. :D

See, the problem here is this "fact" conflicts with another "fact." Abused children will tend toward violence. However, there are also studies that show permissive parents and the entitlement/"everyone's-special" child psychobabble of today ends up raising little Hitlers. For myself, I will raise my child knowing there are limits as opposed to letting them run amok. If they grow up thinking society owes them something, then they WILL end up in jail.

In general, truth often falls in the cracks between the "facts." Currently the scientific process as practiced does not account for that very well.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Abused children will tend toward violence. However, there are also studies that show permissive parents and the entitlement/"everyone's-special" child psychobabble of today ends up raising little Hitlers.


This sounds to me either like a gross over simplification, or an outright over exaggeration, where did you read this?

[DarkLink]

See, the problem here is this "fact" conflicts with another "fact." Abused children will tend toward violence. However, there are also studies that show permissive parents and the entitlement/"everyone's-special" child psychobabble of today ends up raising little Hitlers. For myself, I will raise my child knowing there are limits as opposed to letting them run amok. If they grow up thinking society owes them something, then they WILL end up in jail.


Well, you're kind of missing the point. The point is, there is a correlation between spanking and aggressiveness. Maybe it doesn't cause antisocial behavior, but something is and it is somehow related to spanking. Maybe only bad parents are willing to spank their kids, and so do a poor job raising them and it isn't the spanking itself that does it. The point is, when you see a correlation you don't dismiss it outright because it doesn't fit into your worldview.

I like the way XKCD put it: "correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there' ".

[Necron2.0]

This sounds to me either like a gross over simplification, or an outright over exaggeration, where did you read this?

Well, this isn't the article I'd originally read, but here's something I found after a quick search:
http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/permissive-parenting.htm

and this is something that ran on the 20/20 news program several years back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTfwH_DYWUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9BFXQ6Ng04


Maybe it doesn't cause antisocial behavior, but something is and it is somehow related to spanking.

Is it? If I followed a rock band from city to city, attending every one of their concerts, and one of the band members suddenly died, does that make me responsible? Being present when something happens doesn't mean the two items are materially connected.



I like the way XKCD put it: "correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there' ".

This is what leads to poor science. This is like environmental scientists saying because they found carbon in glacial ice, it points to a cause for global warming. No, it doesn't, not definitively at least. All it points to is that, in the past, when the earth warmed, there was a higher percentage of carbon in the atmosphere. It does not imply anything beyond that. Could the carbon have caused global warming? Maybe. Or, could a rise in temperature have dried out the land, leading to raging conflagrations of desiccated vegitation that pumped carbon into the air? Equally possible. There is no causal link, not on this evidence alone. In this case, the only one doing the winking is the scientist with an agenda (and possibly in need of a grant).

[DarkLink]

Something else that leads to poor science is ignoring a correlation (which means that you need to investigate further, nothing more and nothing less), because you don't care for what it implies. Some studies certainly assume correlation is causation, but at the opposite end of the spectrum you seem to completely dismiss the spanking thing offhand which is just as big of a fallacy.



And the rockstar thing is a poor example. Your constant attendance would have no correlation with the life or death of the singer, as he was both dead and alive while you attended. Had you posited it as "I attended every rock concert, but missed one and the rockstar died while I was gone, thus showing a correlation between my attendance and the rockstar's life", that would have been a much better example.

Edit: Besides, the death of a single rockstar is statistically insignificant. If you attended all the concerts of a few dozen bands, and each had a member die when you were absent, that would be statistically significant enough to imply an correlation beyond random chance.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Well, this isn't the article I'd originally read, but here's something I found after a quick search:
http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/permissive-parenting.htm

and this is something that ran on the 20/20 news program several years back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTfwH_DYWUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9BFXQ6Ng04



Ok, so it says they are more likely to use drugs and have boundary issues, how does that equate to little hitlers? So my initial perception of gross over exaggeration was correct, mainly it was the use of the name hitler.

That is not to say I disagree with you that permissive parenting is a bit silly, really the parenting style needs to be consistent with the psychological needs of the child. Different children work and learn in different ways, and I have little respect for people advocating "This is the true way to teach our children" because frankly that is demonstrably wrong. Every child, every human is different, and the trick is finding a balance of styles that works for many. I do have to say I like the psychologist's approach of saying "you tried really hard" vs "you are really smart", encouraging people to try, instead of just boosting their self esteem makes a lot more sense. Encouraging people to keep trying even when they fail, instead of giving up, is a great idea and can really push people to achieve. How you do this is really tricky though, education really is not a simple subject, and it has always bugged me when people try to over-simplify it.

[Necron2.0]

Ok, so it says they are more likely to use drugs and have boundary issues, how does that equate to little hitlers? So my initial perception of gross over exaggeration was correct, mainly it was the use of the name hitler.

No, not even a little. You obviously didn't look at what I presented. Look again, particularly at the part in the second YouTube video where it says how most violent inmates in prisons have very high self esteem and where people with high self esteem are much more likely to be aggressive and torture others. Even the Hitler comment wasn't off, given that Hitler was raised by an extremely indulgent and permissive mother.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

No, not even a little. You obviously didn't look at what I presented. Look again, particularly at the part in the second YouTube video where it says how most violent inmates in prisons have very high self esteem and where people with high self esteem are much more likely to be aggressive and torture others. Even the Hitler comment wasn't off, given that Hitler was raised by an extremely indulgent and permissive mother.



regardless, the use of the name hitler in any argument is a play to emotion not a play to fact, and that is when your argument falls apart. it is not intellectually dishonest to say "permissive parenting and other factors allowed and lead hitler to do what he did" it is intellectually dishonest to say "all permissive parenting will lead to raising a hitler." creating blanket statements like that are not only statistically and factually inaccurate, but the use of the name hitler to support your argument in fact shows how weak the basis of your argument in fact is. yes permissive parenting helped create the monster that hitler was, but there were other factors, such as the fact that he was a sociopath.

i go back to my point that the parenting style needs to sync with the needs of the child, and how they learn, and not just one blanket method for all children which would fail miserably.

so yes, in fact i did read the article and watched the videos that you linked, the difference is i did not subscribe to your delusional conclusion.

[eldargal]

Discipline is important, but if you have to beat (as opposed to a light smack to give them a shock without inflicting pain) your children to discipline them then you lack intelligence, simple as that. I have no time for permissive parenting either but going to the other extreme is equallty stupid. This is a general statement and not aimed at Necron 2.0.

[DarkLink]

I would phrase it this way: discipline is important, but it's also important to avoid giving your kids 'daddy issues'.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I would phrase it this way: discipline is important, but it's also important to avoid giving your kids 'daddy issues'.

well said