Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 4d

Thank you!

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 6d

Morning!

1 5

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 6d

There is a good chance that this will be the most important economic fact in all of our lives.

Steve Senior @stevensenior.bsky.social · 6d

I think it would do people good to spend more time looking at and thinking about this graph.

From the excellent www.gov.uk/government/p...

A graph showing the number of people aged 65 and over per 100 people from around 1950 to present with projections to 2065. The ratio is flat between 1970 and 2010 ish and then starts to increase. The projection is for the ratio to roughly double by 2065.

2 4 5

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

I disagree on the headline, I think it's good and reasonable (I don't write them) and we need to be able to presume people read the article. But I'm happy to respect your view. Maybe try us again, you could just possibly be surprised!

Anyway, have a good night.

1 1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

It would be different if *anyone*was using this to claim that paracetamol caused autism. They aren't, that I can find. But even writing everything for that - thinking at every stage, "can this be willfully misunderstood" - would be a recipe for madness that would debase us all.

1 1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

I want to keep writing these articles, because the world is a complex and uncertain place. But every time this happens it becomes harder.

2

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

The only reason anyone is interpreting this headline this way is because somoene deliberately screenshotted it, without context, and told people to be outraged. It is an article attempting to explain why it can be correct to say that paracetamol correlates with autism, but doesn't cause it.

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Honestly though - this ridiculous performative outrage - either we notice it, and change, and everything gets stupider. Or we don't, and you get this kind of stupidity. The only people interpreting it this way are people who want to signal their superiority. It kills nuance and actual cleverness.

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

The Times readership consists, by definition, of people who read its articles. In this case one about statistical confounding.

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

And it certainly, emphatically, doesn't write to be screenshotted.

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

No they didn't. The Times isn't interested in clicks, it's a subscriber paper. It writes for people to read it.

2

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

So you amplified a headline without the context that would have explained it, that *you* felt was a public health concern on its own, in order to combat a public health concern. I dunno, that's a bit weird.

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

In all honesty, yes. Maybe we are naive. We write for people to read us. I write 300-odd articles a year. Thinking every time, "if someone maliciously and deliberately removed context on this, how would it look" would drive us mad and be futile. Taking notice of this makes the world stupider

1 1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Honestly, I haven't seen them doing that. Maybe they have? But I've only seen the reverse.

1 1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Is there something you disagree with in the analysis?

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT STATISTICAL CONFOUNDING. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, MAYBE DON'T COMMENT ON IT. IF YOU THINK THE (PERFECTLY REASONABLE) HEADLINE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM, DON'T TWEET IT SHORN OF CONTEXT AND THEREBY MAKE IT A PROBLEM.

1 1 14

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

It's amazing this stuff. Presumably the people who screenshot know that they are wilfully misleading people, but they do it anyway for lovely clout.

The world is indeed complex, and the fact that (probably) statistical confounding can produce spurious correlations is also worthy of attention.

Natasha Devon @natashadevon.bsky.social · 12d

‘The truth about autism and paracetamol is complex’ is a funny way to spell ‘Trump was talking out of his arse’ from the Times….

TOM WHIPPLE
What's the truth about paracetamol and autism? It can be confounding

1 6

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Honestly, it's a perfectly reasonable headline about an article that explains the concept of statistical confounding and why it can lead to correlations that aren't causations.

If people are screenshotting it and implying otherwise than it's them who are wilfully endangering public health....

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Thank you!

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

(I actually think I misunderstood you - I thought you meant pay by article. Pay by edition is a bit different)

2 1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Yeah noted - although, that is actually still possible! We have dead tree versions!

1 1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

Good to see you attempting belatedly to undo the damage you do to public health through prioritising performative outrage over actual intelligence. Well done champ!

1

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

The thing about 1 shot payment is it is always rejected because the idea is it would hollow out the brand. People would pay overwhlemingly for columnists (who would then get a substack). The hard collecting-facts bit wouldn't get the funding, despite being valued - and can in any case be ripped off

1 3

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

But if you care about public health, and that's obviously what you care about, you'd make the change now, right? Otherwise you're endangering public health. That's disgraceful behaviour.

Tom Whipple @whippletom.bsky.social · 9d

I look forward to seeing your urgent clarifying tweet, explaining that your initial tweet should not imply that a major newspaper believes there is a causative link between paracetamol and autism. Because even with your strong (but non-factual) refutation, believing otherwise might lend it credence.

1 1