• jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • mookulator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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