The good things about the Church

[Chum]

20 hours ago, DT_ said:

You must be very proud.  

Why?

[DT_]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The statistics are clear. 

Correlation is not causation. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

much more likely to end up with a lower income level and a higher risk of poverty

People who have good skills and are responsible can survive without a college degree.  Women who marry engineers are more likely to be happier. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

we have to make some fundamental changes in the way that families are engaged by our markets and our politics.

Wouldn't educating people of the GDM risk encourage changes? People usually don't like change without a good reason. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If you want to avoid complications with GDM as much as possible, have children earlier, and have children when you aren't overweight. 

I'm glad we agree. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Why?

I don't think most parents can say the same thing. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 hours ago, DT_ said:

Correlation is not causation. 

So, what you mean by this is that just because there is a greater likelihood that older women who get pregnant develop diabetes more frequently than younger women, that the age doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, right? Because this is exactly the implication of your remark here. I suspect that you don't have much background in statistics, do you ...

You are being inconsistent here with the way that you approach the data. All of these research studies that you are quoting deal only with correlation. We can determine that some correlations are independent of others. But, we still end up with correlations. You cannot shoot down the one set of research without also shooting down the other. All of this research is largely built around the same set of methods and principles.

21 hours ago, DT_ said:

People who have good skills and are responsible can survive without a college degree.  Women who marry engineers are more likely to be happier.

Happier than what? There are so many really good engineering jokes I could insert here, but I think I will restrain myself.

21 hours ago, DT_ said:

Wouldn't educating people of the GDM risk encourage changes? People usually don't like change without a good reason. 

Yes, educating people might. But ... probably not the change that you are looking for. You don't seem to understand any of this very well - and probably, at some point, I will simply give up trying to convince you.

1: There is a risk of GDM apart from the age of the mother - age simply adds to that risk. The other factors that increase the risk of GDM (and because we have a limited understanding, we simply assume that there is a baseline risk for someone who doesn't have any factors that we believe increase that risk) are: obesity, physical inactivity in the pre-pregnancy and pregnancy period, a family history of GDM, age, and a family history of type 2 diabetes (there are a couple of other technical issues that contribute). Additionally, some ethic groups have a higher incidence (in particular Asians). Increasing physical activity in the pre-pregnancy period and during pregnancy resulted (by itself) in a 55% reduction in the risk of GDM. Age is a factor, but it is not the most significant factor (obesity and inactivity are higher factors) - and while it may be a choice, it is a choice that comes with a very high opportunity cost. So if we want to educate women about the risk, there are already changes in lifestyle that can be made to minimize that risk - even at older ages. This is the change that we would most likely see - and not a decision to have children at a younger age.

2: Women who want to get an education and have a career, and who want to get married to someone who shares their values, generally are not interested in early pregnancies (and pregnancy is generally easy enough to avoid). Educating someone who isn't interested in getting pregnant about the risk of GDM isn't really going to have much impact. Education on the risks of GDM will be far more effective on those who are interested in getting pregnant. And the information about how to minimize those risks will be of value. Of the major issues impacting the risk of GDM, two of them are relatively easy to work on - obesity (high BMI) and activity levels. Because of the other costs, educating someone on the risk of GDM at an older age relative to the cost of getting married and having children at a younger age would also be important. I get the sneaking suspicion though that you would not be in favor of explaining the benefits of waiting until a woman is older to get married and have children, the benefit this would have for their marriage, their ability to provide for their family, and so on - in contrast to the risk of GDM.

You want people to change, but the reasons for change need to be holistic. You can't only highlight one facet of an issue and expect for change to occur. You have to look at all of them. The biggest factors women report for delaying marriage and childbirth are economic and educational. So your argument needs to be important enough that it can overcome with those two issues. And, frankly, I don't see your focus on GDM as having that kind of urgency that would overcome the age issue.

Now the real kicker. As you have suggested, your interest here really isn't in healthier pregnancies but in trying to prove a point about the LDS leadership's advice about marriage. And this comes through in the way that you discuss this problem. If you were really serious about solving the problem of higher GDM rates for older women, you might consider the various ways that we (as a society) could change to help reverse some of these historical trends. As it stands, your arguments are incoherent and internally inconsistent - you just keep repeating yourself.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, what you mean by this is that just because there is a greater likelihood that older women who get pregnant develop diabetes more frequently than younger women, that the age doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, right? Because this is exactly the implication of your remark here. I suspect that you don't have much background in statistics, do you ...

You are being inconsistent here with the way that you approach the data. All of these research studies that you are quoting deal only with correlation. We can determine that some correlations are independent of others. But, we still end up with correlations. You cannot shoot down the one set of research without also shooting down the other. All of this research is largely built around the same set of methods and principles.

Happier than what? There are so many really good engineering jokes I could insert here, but I think I will restrain myself.

Yes, educating people might. But ... probably not the change that you are looking for. You don't seem to understand any of this very well - and probably, at some point, I will simply give up trying to convince you.

1: There is a risk of GDM apart from the age of the mother - age simply adds to that risk. The other factors that increase the risk of GDM (and because we have a limited understanding, we simply assume that there is a baseline risk for someone who doesn't have any factors that we believe increase that risk) are: obesity, physical inactivity in the pre-pregnancy and pregnancy period, a family history of GDM, age, and a family history of type 2 diabetes (there are a couple of other technical issues that contribute). Additionally, some ethic groups have a higher incidence (in particular Asians). Increasing physical activity in the pre-pregnancy period and during pregnancy resulted (by itself) in a 55% reduction in the risk of GDM. Age is a factor, but it is not the most significant factor (obesity and inactivity are higher factors) - and while it may be a choice, it is a choice that comes with a very high opportunity cost. So if we want to educate women about the risk, there are already changes in lifestyle that can be made to minimize that risk - even at older ages. This is the change that we would most likely see - and not a decision to have children at a younger age.

2: Women who want to get an education and have a career, and who want to get married to someone who shares their values, generally are not interested in early pregnancies (and pregnancy is generally easy enough to avoid). Educating someone who isn't interested in getting pregnant about the risk of GDM isn't really going to have much impact. Education on the risks of GDM will be far more effective on those who are interested in getting pregnant. And the information about how to minimize those risks will be of value. Of the major issues impacting the risk of GDM, two of them are relatively easy to work on - obesity (high BMI) and activity levels. Because of the other costs, educating someone on the risk of GDM at an older age relative to the cost of getting married and having children at a younger age would also be important. I get the sneaking suspicion though that you would not be in favor of explaining the benefits of waiting until a woman is older to get married and have children, the benefit this would have for their marriage, their ability to provide for their family, and so on - in contrast to the risk of GDM.

You want people to change, but the reasons for change need to be holistic. You can't only highlight one facet of an issue and expect for change to occur. You have to look at all of them. The biggest factors women report for delaying marriage and childbirth are economic and educational. So your argument needs to be important enough that it can overcome with those two issues. And, frankly, I don't see your focus on GDM as having that kind of urgency that would overcome the age issue.

Now the real kicker. As you have suggested, your interest here really isn't in healthier pregnancies but in trying to prove a point about the LDS leadership's advice about marriage. And this comes through in the way that you discuss this problem. If you were really serious about solving the problem of higher GDM rates for older women, you might consider the various ways that we (as a society) could change to help reverse some of these historical trends. As it stands, your arguments are incoherent and internally inconsistent - you just keep repeating yourself.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

We've got Hume vs inductive reasoning and never the twain shall meet.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Unless you throw in Wittgenstein and good size scoop of what happens when you mix language games.   Pragmatism pretty much always wins!! 

🤓

And I am pretty much always convinced of that sometimes.  🤕

[DT_]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:10 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are being inconsistent here with the way that you approach the data. All of these research studies that you are quoting deal only with correlation. We can determine that some correlations are independent of others. But, we still end up with correlations. You cannot shoot down the one set of research without also shooting down the other. 

I think medical research is little bit more rigorous than sociology.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html

On 9/3/2022 at 2:10 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

1: There is a risk of GDM apart from the age of the mother - age simply adds to that risk. The other factors that increase the risk of GDM (and because we have a limited understanding, we simply assume that there is a baseline risk for someone who doesn't have any factors that we believe increase that risk) are: obesity, physical inactivity in the pre-pregnancy and pregnancy period, a family history of GDM, age, and a family history of type 2 diabetes (there are a couple of other technical issues that contribute). Additionally, some ethic groups have a higher incidence (in particular Asians). Increasing physical activity in the pre-pregnancy period and during pregnancy resulted (by itself) in a 55% reduction in the risk of GDM. Age is a factor, but it is not the most significant factor (obesity and inactivity are higher factors) - and while it may be a choice, it is a choice that comes with a very high opportunity cost. So if we want to educate women about the risk, there are already changes in lifestyle that can be made to minimize that risk - even at older ages. 

I don't disagree with any of that. However, doing physical activity gets harder later in life because you'll have less time and energy. I agree women can do other things to decrease the risk of gestational diabetes, but age is an important factor.   

On 9/3/2022 at 2:10 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I get the sneaking suspicion though that you would not be in favor of explaining the benefits of waiting until a woman is older to get married and have children, the benefit this would have for their marriage, their ability to provide for their family, and so on - in contrast to the risk of GDM.

I understand there are benefits. You are adding too many words to my mouth. 

Edited September 6, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:10 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Increasing physical activity in the pre-pregnancy period and during pregnancy resulted (by itself) in a 55% reduction in the risk of GDM. Age is a factor, but it is not the most significant factor (obesity and inactivity are higher factors) - and while it may be a choice, it is a choice that comes with a very high opportunity cost.

Americans have a healthier lifestyle now compared to the 2000s. "Overall, the percentage of all adults who now meet or exceed federal exercise guidelines rose from 18.2% in 2008 to 24.3% by 2017, researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said." https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20190613/cdc-exercise-rates-up-for-urban-rural-americans "The CDC report found that 17 percent of Americans said they were on diets during the 2017-2018 survey period, up from 14 percent a decade earlier." https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-says-more-americans-diets-compared-decade-ago-n1246017

I agree age is not the most significant factor, but the incidence of obesity and gestational diabetes is increasing fast. Experts don't know why. 

Edited September 6, 2022 by DT_

[DT_]

Diabetes increasing among U.S. youth

https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2021-08-24-study-diabetes-increasing-among-us-youth

[Benjamin McGuire]

DT_, unlike you, I am tired of repeating myself. Feel free to have the last word.

[DT_]

58 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

DT_, unlike you, I am tired of repeating myself. Feel free to have the last word.

Repost. 

What do Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development and Belsky's risk model predict about people who wait after 30? Haase, Schmidt, and Ludke use Belsky's risk model to explain why some adults have poorer social relations.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-19737-004

https://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/erik/stage6.html

Edited September 6, 2022 by DT_