• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’m quite confident that these researchers are capable of controlling for other demographic factors, since that’s like data analysis 101. Considering they state the results are stratified by age, why would you think age is a confounding variable? That comment doesn’t make sense to me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1011 months ago

      I think the commenter didn’t notice that the analysis controlled for age through stratification. You’re right that that confounding variable is taken care of.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 months ago

        I think you’re right… it’s a little annoying because if I link to a study, I usually read it (or at least the results lol) and give a tl;dr. Even if you don’t do that, I’d hope you’d at least read what you’re sharing. If you’re going to give a commentary, at the bare minimum you should check your source to see if they addressed that.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          The only thing more annoying than a person who thinks that correlation is always indicative of causation is the person who thinks that correlation is never indicative of causation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      Um actually this study is dog water because they forgot to count the numbers, obviously. I saw it on the title and clearly I know better