for getting annoyed with the MN obsession with research data to support EVERYTHING

[AngryWasp]

okay, so I live with an academic. I come onto MN to get REPITE from having to reference every opinion.

Sometimes I just like to say what I know without going onto a blardy academic database to retrieve supporting articles. I am happy for them to be considered 'opinions' until such time as someone wants to search for them, it might even be me on occassion but fgs MN is my switch-off.

My ds is 3. Live with it. I should not have to scan in a copy of his birth certificate.

If someone is absolutely insistant on something despite opposing opinions then sure, ask politely if they can point to some research, but don't go searching through threads with the sole aim of finding something somewhere that someone has said without linking to research.

I find it bullying behaviour quite frankly!

AIBU or are there some sympathetic posters out there?

Great post from verylittlecarrot.

If you're talking about biscuits or builders or whatever then fine, carry on. But if you rock into a thread and say:

'Formula is the same as breastmilk'
'Obviously it's safer to have a baby in hospital'
'Epidurals are totally safe otherwise they wouldn't do them'

then at best, it's a meaningless and ignorant opinion. At worst, you're spreading misinformation that could have negative health outcomes for individual posters, lurkers and the community at large. Some of us are working very hard to combat infant mortality, harmful birth practices and preventable illnesses.

And while we know all the crap about statistics being made up etc. etc. etc., you have to pay some attention to information from sources like NICE, WHO, Cochrane etc. etc.

Feel free to debate the methodology of those studies or their relevance, but don't just say studies are pointless.

Additionally, I rather like academic reference in subjects like feminism and religion. The intelligence, knowledge and insights on Mumsnet are what raise it above the other sites which are full of 'Awww hun u know best lol'

"And while we know all the crap about statistics being made up etc. etc. etc., you have to pay some attention to information from sources like NICE, WHO, Cochrane etc. etc."

Actually there are a lot of people who DON'T know the crap about statistics being made up, carmen - there are a lot of people who believe wholesale in anything printed in a research paper, so it is worth pointing it out.

You might not have been referring to me, but I certainly did not say that studies are pointless so I hope you don't think I did.

I actually like the fact that MN is peppered with references to research.

Yes, research can (and often is) biased but there is almost always research on both sides of an issue and it is up to the individual to read the opposing views and then make a decision.

I make my decisions based on what I have read, what I hear and the experiences that I and others have gone through.

The research references is one of the things that differentiate MN from other more fluffy foren.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular, thumbwitch - in fact I completely agree with your post. To clarify, I'm referring to a couple of threads recently where there's been people saying "Well, you can prove anything with statistics" in response to decent research from very reputable journals.

YANBU at all

it's BORING

I never click on research done by Blah Blah Blah back this up

yawn

Depends on the subject. I have seen absolute tosh posted, especially on Pregnancy and Childbirth threads, which is misleading and sometimes ridiculous. Yes, I want an evidence base for those assertions, because I am not going to take them seriously otherwise.

Posters shouldn't do it to bully and belittle other poster's opinions, but if it is just used to back up some fact that is relevant to the thread or will help other posters than it is fine.

YANBU - I think many "demand" it because they're unable to analyse freely available data, thoughts an opinions.

Or some of us may be professionals who require a little more than anecdotes.

Professionals can't find their own data? Blimey, someone ought to teach them how to Google.

I agree with what Carmen said .

I see mumsnet as a very informed forum in comparison to a lot of the others - I expect facts to be backed up. Opinions are absolutely fine and of course individual experiences are important.

What I find sets off these arguments is that some people do not understand statistics and risk. Ok, so breastfed babies get less ear infections. That doesnt mean that all formula fed babies will have them constantly or indeed ever have an ear infection. Simply on average breastfed babies have less. The fact your baby didnt is great but not relevant to the statistic (although great obviously).

OP - you did make me giggle with your woes of living with an academic. I am an academic and so bad at this . Poor DH - he is often grilled as to the source of his information or asked to back it up. In my defence though his 'expert source' is usually The Sun or Facebook...

Skihorse - Ironically I can't access one of my own papers as the university don't subscribe to the site and I have managed to lose my final copy - blaming it on pregnancy brain

Do you have a link for this?

YANBU, but I am very surprised to see you saying it, Angrywasp.

Ooh, YA definitely NBU. I hate the way some posters just aggressively post 'Link please!' when some more hapless MNetter has happened to venture an opinion on something more taxing than what to wear on the school run.

I like the fact that MN doesn't let people say that things are true just because 'it's obvious' or because 'it's common sense' or because 'my mum said so' or because 'everyone I know thinks so'.

It's important to think about and consider and challenge things that we take for granted as 'facts'.

I rather wish my MIL would come on MN, but she'd get scared off very quickly.

"I won't ask you to search through threads and link to an example to prove your point"

LOL Grimma

skihorse - more search tools than just Google of course - but sometimes needs the right combination of words to find the same article someone says they are pulling info from.

Sometimes, without a reference, then selective quoting could completely alter the sense and apart from what is quoted, it can sometimes make a difference when you know who is being quoted.

People surely remember the South Korean researcher claiming to have had success with cloning. Imagine pulling some statements as "facts" from one of his past papers, with no links or details as to when it was or who wrote it. Could easily mislead others into belief where the original paper might have been over-zealous or complete fiction (to get research funds) or at a lower level just misguided personal opinion being portrayed as facts.

If someone quoted numbers that they had found on a person's blog, I'd consider other topics posted by the blogger to get some idea whether s/he has an agenda and may be very selective about what they quote.

.
.
.

FWIW I suspect my 'agenda' is pretty transparent - earn a lot of money (yeah, right!) and then scoot off abroad to some tax haven, as I think we've already started the transition to Orwell's Big Brother society under current Government, and I no longer want to be part of it. Oh yes, and to have plenty of female company until I die. Life of leisure on a Caribbean island sound nice, anyone ? (I need to earn a few million quid first, sad to say!)

I agree with Carmen Sandiego - and i like the fact that MN threads DO use a lot of accurate and up to date statistics to back up health debates for example. MMR is one that springs to mind - I am completely pro MMR but having read some of the lonks provided by Pagwatch etc, I now have a much greater undestanding of the wider issues.

The flip side of folks quoting research is that some of it is shit. there was a thread on childbirth a while back which was actually quite scary

You can have all the opinions you like, but if you want to start asserting that X is a FACT and thats it, you better have a little more than your own opinion.

Although some of the ridiculous bunkum that people link to as back up is quite frankly insulting to us all.

Stewie This is not a thread about a thread. It is a thread about lots of threads.

I too like the fact that research is referenced on MN, but what I don't like is 'research evidence' or lack of it to be used as superiority bullying.

There are kind ways of pointing out that formula isn't as good as breastmilk, particularly as the person suggesting it is is unlikely to be stating it for dogmatic reasons, but from ignorance.

Also it is one thing to say 'actually there is a lot of research that says it is noe - here and here', and 'who says? show us your research you moron'.

I think that is the point I was trying to make. I agree that it is a good think to challenge things for the sake of clarity, usefulness to others including lurkers, it is the bullying behaviour I can't abide.

Lou LOL sorry to disappoint. I am trying to make a distinction between wanting clear answers and bullying. Also MN is a valuable support forum and as such sometimes needs to be about affirmation I suppose, especially on the less dangerous topics.

Can we not strike a balance where decent information is got to without deliberate hounding of people who have dared to suggest something that perhaps isn't supported easily with research, or for someone that needs to talk about something for their own exploration of an issue without them being 'shut up' at the first spelling mistake?

Well I think most research seems to cancel itself out in the end, and we choose the bits that suits us. That isn't to say it isn't useful to know about it but one piece of research doesn't end an argument.

Sometimes the research/stats linked to are helpful and informative. Sometimes the person posting the link is point-scoring and neh-nehing any other POV.

I think when it happens as in the latter, the most irritating bit is that often it's to dispute someone's feelings, or reaction to an event. Something personal, which may not be how X% of the population think, or react, but that doesn't mean it isn't so for that person. Foxytocin made this point last week, on another thread....you just can't tell someone that their personal experience or feelings isn't the way they say it is, (or that it's somehow "wrong")and yet so often people do. The ongoing epidural yawnfest is a thread in question, as Coralanne has said.

Equally irritating are the threads which are asking for statistical evidence/fact and which turn into anecdote after anecdote with no facts whatsoever(all trotted out again, to point score, and usually, to hype up the drama. "Breastfeed? Well, yes, my nipples actually fell off I was so sore, but of course I carried on! Docs sewed them back on again".)