31/ Being a young male is, in fact, a cause of suicide. High testosterone increases incidents of violence, and suicide is a form of violence. That's not a correlation; it's causality. https://twitter.com/TBDenham/status/1135583789457915904 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
32/ I think your argument is: "unless (a) there is a biochemical pathway from X to Y WITHOUT behavior as an intermediate step, and (b) the rate of incidence is exactly 100%, it can never be causation but must always be mere correlation"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
33/ Again, you're conflating two things. It doesn't matter if you can choose to be a young male or not; it's still a risk. Your insistence on moving topic back to "yes, but if they can't change ..." is very weird. You are conflating 2 distinct things. https://twitter.com/TBDenham/status/1135584891238735873 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
34/ There are extra variables in EVERYTHING. Not every gay man gets HIV. Not every wingsuit person crashes into a mountain. Not every heroin injector has a bad outcome. Not every cloistered nun avoids getting murdered. https://twitter.com/TBDenham/status/1135585240427065344 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
35/ It is tho. https://twitter.com/TBDenham/status/1135585477635977216 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
36/ You're 2/3 correct, but you're saying it in a confused way. Have you ever done coding of data, or multivariate regressions? If p(x) is associated w gender & males are more likely to x, then we might code female as 0 and male as 1, and call 1 "risk" https://twitter.com/TBDenham/status/1135587716031115267 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
37/ So if we're trying to look at dying by self inflicted gunshot, we'd say p(x) = 0.002 x g + 0.003 x h + ... where 0.002 is the risk coefficient associated with being male, and g is 0 for female and 1 for male and 0.003 is the risk coefficient for some other trait and h ...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
38/ So in this example, no, we would NOT say that being female is a risk factor. We would say that being male is a risk factor. So it's not, contrary to your framing, the case that EVERYTHING is a risk factor.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
39/ 1) I wasn't being snide. 2) the debate is not, and has never been (scroll up!) over whether gays can choose to be gay or not. The debate has only EVER been over whether homosexuality is a risk factor. https://twitter.com/TBDenham/status/1135603752637935618 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
40/ Also, you casually say that "obesity is controllable". question for you: is the success rate of long term weight loss better or worse than that of "conversion therapy"?
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread
41/ Also, re "risk factors" and "but if someone is X and they can't change X..." We all understand that being Jewish is a risk factor for Tay Sachs disease, right? That being black is a risk factor for sickle cell anemia? That being Native American is a risk factor for alcoho-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.