What do you think about James Cantor’s research on pedophilia?

  • Док в отпуске! Возращение к работе в понедельник, 19 апреля, планово. Я буду иногда заходить на форум и общаться, но на большое - отвечать буду _только_ после возвращения, по понятной причине.

Kirill89_3

Покорный инквизитор
10 Янв 2014
23,769
5,054
113
I too can find some relationship with 500 people (about the no. of people he used) with a super low p-value of some property in the brain and some highly complex emergent phenomena. It would all be lies though. I would only be fooled by randomness.
If such 500 people are the random sample of pedophiles and teleophiles then you can find some significant difference, but Cantor's sample isn't random, it is convenience sample (pedophiles were refered to CAMH by court order).
 
Последнее редактирование:

Kirill89_3

Покорный инквизитор
10 Янв 2014
23,769
5,054
113
If we consider something "basic" (at least relatively to white matter volume or density), let's say polygenicity, - in generalizing about a high-order -effect, the standard now is to require AT LEAST 34,000 people in the sample
34 000 sample is robust sample for studying SNPs, DNA polymorphisms, there is another standard in the neuroscience. You need big samples in the DNA stuidies due to multiple correction.
 
Последнее редактирование:
10 Июн 2019
33
46
18
If such 500 people are the random sample of pedophiles and teleophiles than you can find some significant difference, but Cantor's sample isn't random, it is convient sample (pedophiles were refered to CAMH by court order).
Are you referencing this study - Cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men - PubMed ?

Because in that one the sample size is even worse at 127. And it is biased convenience sample too, that makes it worse (people with low white matter and no paraphilias are excluded, for example). Generally speaking with small sample sizes like that even if there were no violations in Jensen's inequality I would be on guard as p-values with small sample sizes are highly skewed and volatile. But there is a Jensen inequality violation regardless.
34 000 sample is robust sample for studying SNPs, DNA polymorphisms, there is another standard in the neuroscience.
It should be much, much, higher, no?
 
  • Like
Реакции: Kirill89_3

Kirill89_3

Покорный инквизитор
10 Янв 2014
23,769
5,054
113
It should be much, much, higher, no?
No, it is smaller, becaue you do more statistical tests in the DNA studies, so you need very strict correction for multiple testing. There are less data in the MRI studies, so there are fewer statistical tests in the MRI studies. MRI studies are not based on the comparison of individual neurons, they are based on the comparison of voxesl or the whole bunches of voxels.
 

MeanGo

Well-Known Member
8 Июн 2020
344
313
63
42
  • Like
Реакции: Kirill89_3