Hacker News Reader

Comment by redcalx | Hacker News Reader

There is a selection bias issue here. E.g. if there were some underling genetic disorder that causes anxiety, then that person is less likely to join a group.

View on HN

Yep, the bias is that all of the scouts came from households that decided to enroll their kid/s in the scouts. This is not a joke, and there is a difference in value systems and other factors that cut across cliché dimensions like socio-economic status.

Yes, this seems likely. Even putting aside fine-grained value differences, a friend of mine put it this way: "Kids of parents who don't care enough go to summer camp, kids of parents who care too much go to scouts." (Referring, mostly, to the average expected levels of parental involvement.)

As a former scout leader, I think there is also another effect at play. In my experience parents often send children to scouts when they don't fit into more mainstream team sports and when children are struggling to make friends elsewhere.

These children are often particularly socially awkward. I'm not an expert but I think that this group of children may be more predisposed to mental illness.

Just curious, what was the size of the city/town that this scout troop was in?

A town of about 50k people, but the troop had a wider catchment area of maybe up to 200k

The study lead was interviewed on R4 this morning, and asserted they they'd controlled for this.

Thanks. Seems they were acutely aware of this; it's the first thing discussed in the paper:

http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/05/jech-2016-20789...

They're comparing with people who went to other groups, and concluding that there is a quality of scouts and guides in particular that is protective.

I do wonder if there is still selection bias, since you may choose to avoid certain types of group, and attend others.

Absolutely a huge selection bias.

My daughter did Sparks & Brownies and it ended up being a big clique of kids who all went to the same church & school and in the end she (a hyper sensitive, artistic, intellectual type child and a more solitary, introverted type) hated it and asked to quit it.

I went through the same thing with Scouts when I was a boy.

The kids that remain after the first couple years of cute crafts and silly games are the kids who like following along with group activities, like doing group organization stuff, and deal well with social groups and (often) cliques.

Basically like sports, like a lot of elementary-level school (and a lot of other things in our society) -- the "odd" kids are selected against.

So no surprise there's "good mental health" for people who are good at conforming to the norm. Because that's literally the definition of "good mental health" encoded in the DSM. A disorder there is a deviation from the norm.

Yeh. The paper claims to have controlled for this by comparing against kids in other groups, I suspect that might not be a very good control. E.g. if your daughter went on to join a different type of group that she did fit in with better, then that's a very clear selection bias. If I'm understanding correctly their control assumes kids just randomly select a group then stick with it.

what about kids who don't do _any_ group

It looks like they weren't included in the study because the authors deemed that they were subject to selection bias (correctly in my view).

1. Define mental health in terms of adherence to the mean. 2. Find a group where adherence to the mean is mandatory in order to continue in the group. 3. Success, the group makes you mentally healthy!

Consider this; if those kids that would normally avoid scouts/guide were now forced to go because their parents saw reports of this study, then the effects could very well be negative, in turn cancelling out or even reversing the reported overall beneficial effects.

a hyper sensitive, artistic, intellectual type child

Most parents think their children are unique. That's why sending them to a group that wears a uniform is so important.

Eh, I would say most new scouts are pretty anxious, and they also potentially come with other issues like asthma that likes to flare up, seizures, diabetes, etc. having had to deal with patrol members with these issues, sometimes 2 having one of these issues at the same time out of a group of 6 or 7.

Generally you deal with it as quickly & safely as possible, get the rest of your patrol to rally and do what is needed to get said person into a stable state, while sending one member to alert your assistant scoutmaster so that further help can be at the ready. That doesn't mean you get to shirk off and not go get his asthma meds, or get the guy with hypothermia some wool clothing and figure out a way to get him warmed up in short order (throw 3 people in a sleeping bag, or a warm (but not hot!) shower if you are lucky to have one).

If there is one thing I learned, Cotton Kills!

(referencing its heat wicking effect when wet)

You're conflating 'experiencing anxiety' with 'some underlying condition that increases the tendency to experience anxiety (and it's severity)'. The first cohort is a subgroup of the second.

Or just switch anxiety for depression - i.e. everyday depression and 'clinical' depression are not the same thing.

No, I can definitely tell the difference between the two, I was just trying to give an example of what I experienced in scouting in the US.

On "Cotton Kills", George Boole (of Boolean algebra) died of pneumonia brought on by his wife's superstitious belief that wet bedsheets were the best cure for a chill that was caused by being caught in the rain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com