UK Politics: Not even a Penny for a new Prime Minister

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Um, what I asked, which kar provided.

...last word... no comebacks.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

All you need to do is look at the number of referrals over the previous years and compare. The relevance is that the number was relatively consistent prior to 2009, then started rising, then shot right up from 2014. The relevant question is to why that number increased so massively in such a short space of time. There isn't a question as to whether it shot up or not. It certainly isn't explained by an exponential growth in population. 

I agree with DMC… a large increase of a very small number to a slightly larger number that is still in aggregate small is interesting… but not necessarily alarming.  

That’s the nature of statistics it is relatively easy to make “scary” percentages and percentage changes out of small numbers… because changes to small numbers look bigger than they are when held up against total population numbers.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree with DMC… a large increase of a very small number to a slightly larger number that is still in aggregate small is interesting… but not necessarily alarming.  

That’s the nature of statistics it is relatively easy to make “scary” percentages and percentage changes out of small numbers… because changes to small numbers look bigger than they are when held up against total population numbers.

That might be the case if the numbers hadn't been consistent over a period of time and then jumped up. Remember the major finding is that GIDS clinics couldn't cope with the huge increase in numbers because they were set up based on what was considered a 'normal' amount of cases, which then changed very rapidly across numerous countries at basically the same time.

I get the urge to try and dispute the data and try and handwave it, but it's really not relevant here. The numbers jump was exponential, nobody is suggesting anything other than that. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

That might be the case if the numbers hadn't been consistent over a period of time and then jumped up. Remember the major finding is that GIDS clinics couldn't cope with the huge increase in numbers because they were set up based on what was considered a 'normal' amount of cases, which then changed very rapidly across numerous countries at basically the same time.

I get the urge to try and dispute the data and try and handwave it, but it's really not relevant here. The numbers jump was exponential, nobody is suggesting anything other than that. 

I’m not disputing the data.  I’m agreing with DMC that raw totals need to be held up against that data to put the changes described as alarming into perspective.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not disputing the data.  I’m agreing with DMC that raw totals need to be held up against that data to put the changes described as alarming into perspective.

Again, I don't think it's really relevant to look at overall population values in this context. It doesn't tell you anything useful. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Again, I don't think it's really relevant to look at overall population values in this context. It doesn't tell you anything useful. 

It tells you that “alarming” increases are still a statistically small percentage of the overall population.  You can argue an increasing trend line.  

But exposure to discussions of these issues that were not to be had twenty years ago may explain that trend.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well the data I gave was pretty clear. 250 cases a year rising to 5000 cases a year within a decade. What more do you need to know. 

It's probably because people feel more comfortable these days discussing it and DMC is absolutely correct to bring up the scale. Going from 250 to 5,000 is a big deal if your sample is 10,000 people. But if it's a fractional increase it's not. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It's probably because people feel more comfortable these days discussing it and DMC is absolutely correct to bring up the scale. Going from 250 to 5,000 is a big deal if your sample is 10,000 people. But if it's a fractional increase it's not. 

Yeah. It would be like saying there’s been a massive jump in gay people since 30 years ago. No, people no longer feel they have to hide it or be in denial about it.

[Heartofice]

59 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It tells you that “alarming” increases are still a statistically small percentage of the overall population.  You can argue an increasing trend line.  

But exposure to discussions of these issues that were not to be had twenty years ago may explain that trend.  

Where are you getting 'alarming' from? The only person to say this was Karaddin. I used it purely as context to demonstrate context that is relevant to understand the situation as a whole. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Yeah. It would be like saying there’s been a massive jump in gay people since 30 years ago. No, people no longer feel they have to hide it or be in denial about it.

Again, the report deals with this and says this explanation doesn't work. It's worth reading the report.

[DMC]

I guess what I’m wondering is why this - yes significant - increase is indicative of anything other than societal changes.  Boosting from 250 to five or even ten thousand should be rather anticipated, all things considered.

And I’m especially curious why this is an argument for or against anything.  As the article originally linked states, doctors have a hard time themselves knowing what to do.  That’s what should be emphasized if you are concerned about this change in treatment.  And I think that’s a valid concern.  I suspect there are a not insignificant proportion of young people that are expressing these preferences due to other problems.

But just exploiting some numbers is not really addressing the issue.  Like, abortion clinics in blue states bordering red states have skyrocketing admittance rates since Roe was struck down.  That doesn’t mean there’s some abortion epidemic, it just means the circumstances and environment have shifted.

[Heartofice]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I guess what I’m wondering is why this - yes significant - increase is indicative of anything other than societal changes.  Boosting from 250 to five or even ten thousand should be rather anticipated, all things considered.

Yes, but it depends what this social change you are referring to is.

If you think this is simply a matter of greater acceptance for trans identities in societies, well that was raised in the review:
 

Quote

A common explanation put forward is that the increase in presentation is because of greater acceptance. While it certainly seems to be the case that there is much greater acceptance of trans identities, particularly among younger generations, which may account for some of the increase in numbers, the exponential change in referrals over a particularly short five-year timeframe is very much faster than would be expected for normal evolution of acceptance of a minority group. This also does not adequately explain the switch from birth-registered males to birth-registered females, which is unlike trans presentations in any prior historical period

The rise is simply too rapid and the difference in the type of children reporting to these clinics was so marked that it really doesn't make any sense to just attribute it to greater societal acceptance. Which as I mentioned before, if you listened to some people doesn't exist anyway.

However if you want to think about some of the other things that happened in this very short amount of time, I might mention the introduction of the smartphone and access to the internet. How this all ties into a wave of mental health issues and depression being experienced, I personally think there is a clear link. 

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The rise is simply too rapid and the difference in the type of children reporting to these clinics was so marked that it really doesn't make any sense to just attribute it to greater societal acceptance.

As I intimated I think there are other factors involved, sure, but in the main it’s really not worthy of such hyperbolic rhetoric.  Again, I kind of agree with you regarding this shift should be carefully considered and discussed.  However, I’m also trained as a statistical analyst, and this report does not align to the verbiage being used.

[Heartofice]

Just now, DMC said:

As I intimated I think there are other factors involved, sure, but in the main it’s really not worthy of such hyperbolic rhetoric.  Again, I kind of agree with you regarding this shift should be carefully considered and discussed.  However, I’m also trained as a statistical analyst, and this report does not align to the verbiage being used.

As I said, I brought this up in context to the previous conversation. The numbers are pretty relevant, and suggestive that a lot of children are being convinced their issues are to do with gender confusion, an assumption that isn't being challenged enough by practitioners for a variety of reasons, and are then put on irreversible pathways. 
 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

and suggestive that a lot of children are being convinced their issues are to do with gender confusion, an assumption that isn't being challenged enough by practitioners for a variety of reasons, and are then put on irreversible pathways. 

Yeah sure, doctors and the government should probably adopt some type of red flag mechanisms when the parents and/or the child themselves are making such a decision too hastily.  But that has very little to do with the numbers you keep harping on.  Indeed, emphasis on the latter generally impedes good faith efforts to achieve positive policy outcomes.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

 But that has very little to do with the numbers you keep harping on

Well yes if there were proper processes in place for a holistic approach that challenges assumptions being made by children as to their own feelings, rather than affirming them automatically, then this would be less of an issue. The whole point of the Cass Review is to say that this wasn’t happening. 

Edited April 12 by Heartofice

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The whole point of the Cass Review is to say that this wasn’t happening. 

To be clear I’m not just criticizing you, I’m criticizing the Cass report.  I haven’t read all of it, but reviewing the analysis in which she’s drawing conclusions, there are myriad methodological issues.  Like, really basic modeling problems wherein she doesn’t employ instrumental or even controls to present her findings.
 

I had no idea who Hilary Cass was until a few hours ago, and it’s unfair to put this on her - very likely the issues were due to others before publication.  But I don’t put much stock in that report as a scientific study.  At least in terms of the methods employed to assert behavioral trends.  It’s plainly a production for a certain political agenda.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be clear I’m not just criticizing you, I’m criticizing the Cass report.  I haven’t read all of it, but reviewing the analysis in which she’s drawing conclusions, there are myriad methodological issues.  Like, really basic modeling problems wherein she doesn’t employ instrumental or even controls to present her findings.
 

I had no idea who Hilary Cass was until a few hours ago, and it’s unfair to put this on her - very likely the issues were due to others before publication.  But I don’t put much stock in that report as a scientific study.  At least in terms of the methods employed to assert behavioral trends.  It’s plainly a production for a certain political agenda.

Sure, but if it came down to who’s opinion I should be listen to, would it be a world renowned paediatrician who has spent years researching the subject , or a guy off a forum who hasn’t read the report and couldn’t work out how to get population data on the internet. 
 

It’s a toughie. 

Edited April 12 by Heartofice

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Sure, but if it came down to who’s opinion I should be listen to, would it be a world renowned paediatrician who has spent years researching the subject , or a guy off a forum who hasn’t read the report and couldn’t work out how to get population data on the internet. 
 

It’s a toughie. 

Heh.  My dad had a physiology PhD from Berkeley and was a leader in his field.  When he asked for help a few years back I couldn’t believe how ill-equipped he was at analyzing his data.  Dude was still like “well why can’t we just use ANOVA?”  
 

“Hard” scientists often have no fucking idea what they’re doing when it comes to statistical models.  And even further when it comes to statistical models on human behavior.  Especially when it comes to older researchers that are generally resistant to the methodological advances achieved over the past few decades.  Make fun of me all you want, but this isn’t an isolated thing.  Nor is the sitting government altering reports for their own benefit.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Heh.  My dad had a physiology PhD from Berkeley and was a leader in his field.  When he asked for help a few years back I couldn’t believe how ill-equipped he was at analyzing his data.  Dude was still like “well why can’t we just use ANOVA?”  
 

“Hard” scientists often have no fucking idea what they’re doing when it comes to statistical models.  And even further when it comes to statistical models on human behavior.  Especially when it comes to older researchers that are generally resistant to the methodological advances achieved over the past few decades.  Make fun of me all you want, but this isn’t an isolated thing.  Nor is the sitting government altering reports for their own benefit.

Yeah I’ll see if I can get Hilary Cass’ email for you, so you can mansplain to her the basic errors in the report you didn’t read.