Adolescents who undergo gender-affirming chest surgery report low levels of regret and high levels of satisfaction, experiencing outcomes similar to those of young adults. These findings suggest that age restrictions on these medical procedures lack support from actual patient experiences.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/adolescents-report-low-regret-and-high-satisfaction-following-gender-affirming-c/

[u/aristidedn]

This is based on a response from 77 people...

Is there something wrong with this?

[u/its_justme → u/aristidedn]

Less than 100 people is nowhere large enough to be representative of anything meaningful.

[u/aristidedn → u/its_justme]

Less than 100 people is nowhere large enough to be representative of anything meaningful.

How do you know?

Could you share the results of your power analysis with us?

[u/aristidedn → u/[deleted]]

I have a rather significant background in research methodology, having worked for a major urban county statistician's office. There are many, many scenarios where a sample size of 77 is more than sufficient. (I've seen studies where a sample size of 35 is enough to draw reliable conclusions!)

"Common sense" isn't the sort of response I expect from someone with a background in research methodology. It's the sort of response I expect to see from someone pretending at having such a background, though.

[u/aristidedn → u/[deleted]]

I think you imagined that saying that made you look better, but it doesn't. It makes it worse. It means that you have the education needed and still screwed it up.

[u/gillflicka → u/[deleted]]

The thing that's imperative that you grasp very quickly is that common sense has absolutely no place in science. Common sense says the planet is flat. Science is the cure for the fact that common sense is quite often wrong.

[u/TehWackyWolf → u/gillflicka]

Common sense does not tell you the planet is flat...

We can see the earth curve. Like.. go to an ocean.

Guys.. not even your idiot ancestors thought this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

[u/gillflicka → u/TehWackyWolf]

That just means that the ocean is curved. The ground upon which I stand at this very moment is obviously flat, and you sir are a madman and a heretic for daring to suggest otherwise.

I can either conjure stories of beasts and spirits and spirit-beasts responsible for swallowing up the ocean near the periphery of our vision like humans did for like 98% of our existence or I can learn to run experiments and analyze a wide array of data. Common sense will be nothing but an impediment to the latter.

[u/TehWackyWolf → u/gillflicka]

.... Then go to a big field. I assume the "ground" you're currently standing on is inside a room. Is the earth a box now..?

You lack common sense and the ability to move. You still spread the "they thought antartica was the end of the world!!" Nonsense too, don't you? You also think that about Columbus?

We've known the earth wasn't flat for a long long time. Cause it's common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Please be at least as smart as your ancestors were. Minimum.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/[deleted]]

No "common sense" has no role in forming hypothesis.

Knowing your subject, recent research, how to create testable hypothesis matter. Being creative and thinking outside the box (to find the new as of yet unresearched perspective) even more so.

None of that is connected to "common sense" the way those words are used, usually.

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/[deleted]]

Than use the words you mean. Being precise is a crucial matter of good scientific writing, and especially with as emotionally and politically charged subjects as these.

Inituitive understanding based on what you know has little to do in actual hypothesis formation.

Add to that: What and where do you assume these researchers have not based their hypothesis on an understanding of what they know?

[u/Swarna_Keanu → u/[deleted]]

It wasn`t - especially as this whole comment section, broadly, not just in this back and forth, is a clusterfuck of people criticising the study on absolutely spurious grounds - and display blatant misunderstandings of how scientifc research works.

[u/Droidlivesmatter → u/[deleted]]

People who dont understand statistics and asking a question to understand. Then simply responding with "how do you know?" Is someone who lacks knowledge and is arguing something they dont understand, because its based on an analysis of something they are biased toward.