![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My best friend is seven months pregnant and weighing the different post-delivery sleeping arrangements. Since a pillar of our friendship is our status as research buddies, co-sleeping studies have been on my mind, and the role of inference in interpreting data.
With co-sleeping, the studies are all over the place. By and large, if a study is conducted in a country where co-sleeping is not the norm, co-sleeping is found to increase infant mortality by a statistically significant margin. If, on the other hand, a study is conducted in a country where co-sleeping is the norm, it will find that co-sleeping decreases infant mortality and has various beneficial add-ons.
(Incidentally, although I'm saying "statistically significant" it's still a small difference. This being babies, we're in "any risk is too much" territory.)
Attempts to reconcile these studies mainly involves a throwing up of hands and an assumption that this cannot be resolved until we generate more data, and/or a knowing nod that means "the bias of scientists is affecting their studies."
There's a third possibility, though, because all of these co-sleeping mothers exist in a cultural context. It is possibly that all the studies are in fact showing that babies are more at risk when their mothers are people who go against social norms. Presumably, a significant percentage of non-mainstream mothers have a higher tolerance for risk, and/or have complicating factors that make them behave oddly, and/or prize their own autonomy to an unusual degree. Any of those things could increase the mortality rate of their babies.
This is not exactly a welcome conclusion, since I am myself often at odds with the mainstream, although it is perhaps more optimistic to say I am a leading indicator. Still, I prefer it to the notion that scientists all around the world are routinely making amateur mistakes in their data collection.
Incidentally, for future trend watchers, my current favorite ice cream flavor is banana, and I'm into geometric ceilings and watercolor.
With co-sleeping, the studies are all over the place. By and large, if a study is conducted in a country where co-sleeping is not the norm, co-sleeping is found to increase infant mortality by a statistically significant margin. If, on the other hand, a study is conducted in a country where co-sleeping is the norm, it will find that co-sleeping decreases infant mortality and has various beneficial add-ons.
(Incidentally, although I'm saying "statistically significant" it's still a small difference. This being babies, we're in "any risk is too much" territory.)
Attempts to reconcile these studies mainly involves a throwing up of hands and an assumption that this cannot be resolved until we generate more data, and/or a knowing nod that means "the bias of scientists is affecting their studies."
There's a third possibility, though, because all of these co-sleeping mothers exist in a cultural context. It is possibly that all the studies are in fact showing that babies are more at risk when their mothers are people who go against social norms. Presumably, a significant percentage of non-mainstream mothers have a higher tolerance for risk, and/or have complicating factors that make them behave oddly, and/or prize their own autonomy to an unusual degree. Any of those things could increase the mortality rate of their babies.
This is not exactly a welcome conclusion, since I am myself often at odds with the mainstream, although it is perhaps more optimistic to say I am a leading indicator. Still, I prefer it to the notion that scientists all around the world are routinely making amateur mistakes in their data collection.
Incidentally, for future trend watchers, my current favorite ice cream flavor is banana, and I'm into geometric ceilings and watercolor.
