SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Saturday November 12 2016, @05:03PM
from the it-was-pretty-good-then-too dept.
from the it-was-pretty-good-then-too dept.
People who were in the scouts or guides in childhood have better mental health in later life, a study suggests.
Analysis of a study of 10,000 people found ex-members were 15% less likely than other adults to suffer anxiety or mood disorders at the age of 50.
Researchers believe it could be the lessons in resilience and resolve that such organisations offer that has a lasting positive impact.
The researchers were from Edinburgh and Glasgow universities.
They looked at data from a lifelong study of almost 10,000 people from across the UK who were born in November 1958, known as the National Child Development Study.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Scouts and Guides Provide 'Mental Health Boost for Life'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 29 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @05:48PM
Sigh....correlation is not causation...
I hate that term when snidely posted on forums inappropriately but in this case it fits the bill...
I could come up with a dozen reasons off the top of my head that they could not have controlled for. Unlike another poster who talked about back backgrounds and wealth which of course they will have controlled for. DUH)
Nothing to see here...
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday November 12 2016, @06:02PM
Maybe there is no causal link, but the correlation is good enough to provide some guidance on how to live your life! As for myself, I am right now going to try to have better mental health so that I could have been a Scout or a Guide earlier in my life. You see, causation only goes one way, but correlation is a two-way street!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @09:01PM
No, you are wrong.
I wont bother explaining because this is the internet and its pointless...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 12 2016, @09:22PM
There is a 99.947% record of AC's being wrong when they assert a non-AC is wrong, so I can only infer that this statistic that you are wrong in your assertion that I are wrong. Do not blame the internets when it is you being AC that is causing your wrongness. Besides, Prof. Hawking agrees.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @07:27PM
correlation is not causation
So exactly when isn't this the case, especially in human endeavors?
Go to a shrink because you're feeling depressed?
correlation is not causation
Having a dog reduces blood pressure.
correlation is not causation
Midget clown porn makes for some weird feels.
correlation is not causation
It's not so hard to grok that essentially life training among a supportive peer group might yield some benefits in mental health and coping. Sometimes it isn't the correlation, but the lack of a fine enough instrument to measure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @09:03PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Irrelevant.
You cannot draw causative conclusions from this study. ESPECIALLY this sort study.
Certainly not the one claimed.
If you don't understand why, there is not point explaining this further because you are a moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @10:04PM
That's great Jim, but that doesn't answer my charges.
There's inductive and deductive reasoning, not to mention reductionist fallacy which the mental midgets (god damn midgets are on the brain today) who cluck correlation is not causation fall prey to even as they are making the charge of questionable cause (improperly I might add, as your bountiful counter-arguments as to the flaws are no where to be found).
I mean hell, can you even describe the mechanism for depression? Then it must not exist.
This is what the learned would call weak evidence, but not the absence of evidence, which should merit further study so the causation(s) (if it exists) can be identified.
But many an internet expert who think that something as complex as the brain can be surmised in C!=C do adore how cogent and incisive they are even when staring down 10,000 years of human institutions that follow essentially the same pattern as the scouts while people in isolation tend to go mad.
there is not point explaining this further because you are a moron
More likely you lack the capacity to explain it because you don't understand it yourself.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday November 12 2016, @10:15PM
The correlation between correlation and causation historically does not imply causation ;)
There's a correlation between every event that actually happened, by definition, but very few of those involve causation, for interesting definitions of causation.
When you base your system of beliefs around correlation = causation, you get religion (I prayed to God for a month, and my wish was granted!). When you base your system of beliefs around correlation != causation, you get science. One of these has brought more social advance in a thousand years than the other has in ten thousand.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by darkfeline on Saturday November 12 2016, @10:10PM
Pretty much all the time, since humans are inherently irrational and we justify our actions after we have already acted.
>correlation between eating at McDonalds and low income
Eating at McDonalds does not make you poor
>dog owners have lower blood pressure
People who are more active (and thus have lower blood pressure) are more likely to own dogs. Getting a dog if you have a sedentary lifestyle does not (necessarily) lower your blood pressure.
>Go to a shrink because you're feeling depressed
You might become depressed because of the psychologist. You believe what the professional tells you.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:49PM
Looks like you're not wary enough about the social sciences. For one thing, this is but one study; it hasn't been significantly replicated and there's no real scientific consensus about this matter. Secondly, studying subjective things like "mental health" is extremely prone to error and bias, and this is what makes the social sciences less reliable. This doesn't mean this particular study is wrong, but I will remain skeptical.