<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Faith In Breasts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html</link>
	<description>Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:58:36 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: To Breastfeed or Not &#187; Lone Gunman</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-431081</link>
		<dc:creator>To Breastfeed or Not &#187; Lone Gunman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-431081</guid>
		<description>[...] via Overcoming Bias [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] via Overcoming Bias [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385393</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:54:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385393</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;&gt;BillB, I would eat the kittens.
&gt;&gt;Would you eat your mother?
&gt;Billb, like I said... don&#039;t ask.

I think the real question is &quot;Would you eat babies?&quot;...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>>>>BillB, I would eat the kittens.<br />
>>Would you eat your mother?<br />
>Billb, like I said&#8230; don&#8217;t ask.</p>
<p>I think the real question is &#8220;Would you eat babies?&#8221;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pablo Stafforini</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385392</link>
		<dc:creator>Pablo Stafforini</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385392</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Can you quantify the difference 6 points makes?&lt;/em&gt;

Note that the link between breastfeeding and IQ is important not only because of the significance of 6 IQ points, but also because we know of very few other interventions that can similarly boost intellectual ability.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Can you quantify the difference 6 points makes?</em></p>
<p>Note that the link between breastfeeding and IQ is important not only because of the significance of 6 IQ points, but also because we know of very few other interventions that can similarly boost intellectual ability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adina</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385391</link>
		<dc:creator>adina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385391</guid>
		<description>After reading the paper that Hanson cites, my &quot;faith in breasts&quot; is somewhat diminished. However, I do put some stock in arguments from authority, as a &quot;shortcut&quot; regarding topics that I don&#039;t know much about. Thus, given the fact that so many medical organizations that claim to have reviewed the evidence strontly favor breastfeeding, I tentatively lean toward breastfeeding being superior to formula, albeit with a bit less enthusiasm. While I recognize that both might be equal, I believe that there is little chance that formula is superior, and that there&#039;s a possible chance that breast milk could be significantly superior- a possibilty that would likely scare me into breastfeeding, even given its costs. I&#039;m not sure what I&#039;d recommend to my patients.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading the paper that Hanson cites, my &#8220;faith in breasts&#8221; is somewhat diminished. However, I do put some stock in arguments from authority, as a &#8220;shortcut&#8221; regarding topics that I don&#8217;t know much about. Thus, given the fact that so many medical organizations that claim to have reviewed the evidence strontly favor breastfeeding, I tentatively lean toward breastfeeding being superior to formula, albeit with a bit less enthusiasm. While I recognize that both might be equal, I believe that there is little chance that formula is superior, and that there&#8217;s a possible chance that breast milk could be significantly superior- a possibilty that would likely scare me into breastfeeding, even given its costs. I&#8217;m not sure what I&#8217;d recommend to my patients.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frelkins</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385390</link>
		<dc:creator>frelkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385390</guid>
		<description>@Tyrell

&quot;She is saying that she had a very human reaction of seething&quot;

Oh no, I don&#039;t think she was being sarcastic. No, I did not misread her. Rather you can&#039;t seem to see the not-very-subtext that is whacking you upside the head.

You see, this is why so many OB readers don&#039;t seem to have successful relationships. Many appear to lack understanding of what constitutes dysfunctional behavior.

&quot;Seething&quot; is not a functional relationship strategy. It may be human, but it will destroy your love and respect for one another in an acid sea of resentment.

Don&#039;t &quot;seethe&quot; in your relationships. If you can&#039;t talk about X right there on the spot, respectfully and with tenderness, you&#039;re screwed. Or rather, you won&#039;t be. Ask anyone who&#039;s been married, oh 10 or 20 years.

Resenting your husband and writing about it in national magazines isn&#039;t my suggested way to go. It&#039;s the airing the ugly resentment she has carefully stored for such a monetary occasion - look! how humorous, how self-deprecating! - that indicates lack of respect for her husband as a human being. It&#039;s a tantrum, and we all know about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/08/tantrums_as_sta.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tantrums&lt;/a&gt;. Don&#039;t try this at home, ok?

Resenting your husband for the choices you have made and your inability or refusal to communicate your issues around them shows a lack of maturity, a lack of accepting responsibility for your own behavior. This is repulsive man-hating victim feminism in a not-so-subtle form.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tyrell</p>
<p>&#8220;She is saying that she had a very human reaction of seething&#8221;</p>
<p>Oh no, I don&#8217;t think she was being sarcastic. No, I did not misread her. Rather you can&#8217;t seem to see the not-very-subtext that is whacking you upside the head.</p>
<p>You see, this is why so many OB readers don&#8217;t seem to have successful relationships. Many appear to lack understanding of what constitutes dysfunctional behavior.</p>
<p>&#8220;Seething&#8221; is not a functional relationship strategy. It may be human, but it will destroy your love and respect for one another in an acid sea of resentment.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t &#8220;seethe&#8221; in your relationships. If you can&#8217;t talk about X right there on the spot, respectfully and with tenderness, you&#8217;re screwed. Or rather, you won&#8217;t be. Ask anyone who&#8217;s been married, oh 10 or 20 years.</p>
<p>Resenting your husband and writing about it in national magazines isn&#8217;t my suggested way to go. It&#8217;s the airing the ugly resentment she has carefully stored for such a monetary occasion &#8211; look! how humorous, how self-deprecating! &#8211; that indicates lack of respect for her husband as a human being. It&#8217;s a tantrum, and we all know about <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/08/tantrums_as_sta.html" rel="nofollow">tantrums</a>. Don&#8217;t try this at home, ok?</p>
<p>Resenting your husband for the choices you have made and your inability or refusal to communicate your issues around them shows a lack of maturity, a lack of accepting responsibility for your own behavior. This is repulsive man-hating victim feminism in a not-so-subtle form.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyrrell McAllister</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385389</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyrrell McAllister</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385389</guid>
		<description>frelkins, I think that you misread her.  You seem to think that she is being sarcastic when she writes, &quot;My husband acknowledged the ripple in the nighttime peace with a grunt, and that’s about it. And why should he do more? There’s no use in both of us being a wreck in the morning.&quot;  I think that she was being sincere.  That interpretation seems to me to be most consistent with the following line: &quot;Nonetheless, it’s hard not to seethe.&quot;  The &quot;nonetheless&quot; to me implies that she grants the truth of the preceding sentence.

She is saying that she had a very human reaction of seething when she was working in the middle of the night while the person next to her slumbered, but that she saw good reasons for why it should be that way.  As a male who doesn&#039;t like to be roused in the middle of the night, I can easily understand her irritation at watching her husband sleep while she has to get up.  The irritation may not be rational, but I certainly don&#039;t think that her feeling it implies that she doesn&#039;t have &quot;any respect for [her] husband as a human being.&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>frelkins, I think that you misread her.  You seem to think that she is being sarcastic when she writes, &#8220;My husband acknowledged the ripple in the nighttime peace with a grunt, and that’s about it. And why should he do more? There’s no use in both of us being a wreck in the morning.&#8221;  I think that she was being sincere.  That interpretation seems to me to be most consistent with the following line: &#8220;Nonetheless, it’s hard not to seethe.&#8221;  The &#8220;nonetheless&#8221; to me implies that she grants the truth of the preceding sentence.</p>
<p>She is saying that she had a very human reaction of seething when she was working in the middle of the night while the person next to her slumbered, but that she saw good reasons for why it should be that way.  As a male who doesn&#8217;t like to be roused in the middle of the night, I can easily understand her irritation at watching her husband sleep while she has to get up.  The irritation may not be rational, but I certainly don&#8217;t think that her feeling it implies that she doesn&#8217;t have &#8220;any respect for [her] husband as a human being.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Knight</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385388</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385388</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;invalidates the randomization&lt;/em&gt;

It invalidates the blinding, not the randomization! It seems like a pretty small problem (every study has problems), though the cherry-picking multiple measures of IQ is a big problem.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>invalidates the randomization</em></p>
<p>It invalidates the blinding, not the randomization! It seems like a pretty small problem (every study has problems), though the cherry-picking multiple measures of IQ is a big problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: diogenes</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385387</link>
		<dc:creator>diogenes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385387</guid>
		<description>Its funny how breast feeding is &quot;medicine&quot; and formula isn&#039;t -- when one is obviously a recent technological advancement and the other has been around for ages (Economic benefits of breastfeeding: a review and analysis. US Dept of Agriculture). Supposedly breast feeding reduces costs, and contra what some people are saying, should be easier for poorer women.

The two clearest benefits I remeber about breast feeding are reduced infections (Breast milk provides immunity to baby, by passing moms immunoglobulins on) and pair-bonding for mom and baby. Benefits to Mom and Baby are clearly summarized, along with the controversies surrounding cognitive improvement in UpToDate review articles.

As many other people have pointed out --&lt;b&gt; Robin can&#039;t be bothered to read the medical literature&lt;/b&gt;. He can&#039;t be bothered to find a review. He just doesn&#039;t want to hear contradictory evidence -- god help anyone who listens to Robin&#039;s medical advice.

For the billionth time -- get a damn subscription to uptodate and read the review article before you even try to contradict anything. The review articles cite the primary literature AND the problems with the studies as well as the argument for current medical thinking.

&lt;b&gt;To demonstrate how LAZY and reckless you are&lt;/b&gt;, I just want to highlight what happened when I went to UpToDate. For those not familiar -- &lt;b&gt;uptodate is the equivalent of google for medicine&lt;/b&gt;. In any other setting You caa&#039;t make an argument against a popularly held belief without bothering to google counter arguments. &lt;b&gt;So, I put breast feeding in the search box, and 3 of the top 10 results are&lt;/b&gt;
1.) Maternal and economic benefits of breastfeeding
2.) Infant benefits of breastfeeding
3.) The impact of breastfeeding on the development of allergic disease

Each of these reviews has over 50 references. Here is an excert on the part on cognitive development:

&lt;i&gt; A number of studies have shown small neurodevelopmental advantages in children who were breast-fed compared to those who received formula, as illustrated below:
Cognitive development — Although there have been several reports that breastfeeding improves cognitive development later in childhood and adolescence to breastfeeding [76-79], this association remains uncertain [80].&lt;/i&gt;



</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its funny how breast feeding is &#8220;medicine&#8221; and formula isn&#8217;t &#8212; when one is obviously a recent technological advancement and the other has been around for ages (Economic benefits of breastfeeding: a review and analysis. US Dept of Agriculture). Supposedly breast feeding reduces costs, and contra what some people are saying, should be easier for poorer women.</p>
<p>The two clearest benefits I remeber about breast feeding are reduced infections (Breast milk provides immunity to baby, by passing moms immunoglobulins on) and pair-bonding for mom and baby. Benefits to Mom and Baby are clearly summarized, along with the controversies surrounding cognitive improvement in UpToDate review articles.</p>
<p>As many other people have pointed out &#8211;<b> Robin can&#8217;t be bothered to read the medical literature</b>. He can&#8217;t be bothered to find a review. He just doesn&#8217;t want to hear contradictory evidence &#8212; god help anyone who listens to Robin&#8217;s medical advice.</p>
<p>For the billionth time &#8212; get a damn subscription to uptodate and read the review article before you even try to contradict anything. The review articles cite the primary literature AND the problems with the studies as well as the argument for current medical thinking.</p>
<p><b>To demonstrate how LAZY and reckless you are</b>, I just want to highlight what happened when I went to UpToDate. For those not familiar &#8212; <b>uptodate is the equivalent of google for medicine</b>. In any other setting You caa&#8217;t make an argument against a popularly held belief without bothering to google counter arguments. <b>So, I put breast feeding in the search box, and 3 of the top 10 results are</b><br />
1.) Maternal and economic benefits of breastfeeding<br />
2.) Infant benefits of breastfeeding<br />
3.) The impact of breastfeeding on the development of allergic disease</p>
<p>Each of these reviews has over 50 references. Here is an excert on the part on cognitive development:</p>
<p><i> A number of studies have shown small neurodevelopmental advantages in children who were breast-fed compared to those who received formula, as illustrated below:<br />
Cognitive development — Although there have been several reports that breastfeeding improves cognitive development later in childhood and adolescence to breastfeeding [76-79], this association remains uncertain [80].</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frelkins</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385386</link>
		<dc:creator>frelkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385386</guid>
		<description>@Johnathan Graehl

&quot;&lt;em&gt;6 points&lt;/em&gt;&quot;

&quot;Trasande et al. used a value for lifetime earnings (in 2000 dollars) of $1,032,002 for males and $763,468 for females based on the work of Max et al. (2004). . . .Both the U.S. EPA and Trasande use the work of Salkever (1995) to estimate the effect that one IQ point decrement has on earnings. Because the Trasande earnings are sex specific, the authors use Salkever’s sex-specific results. For each IQ point decrement, males experience a 1.93% decrease in lifetime earnings and females experience a 3.23% decrease.&quot;

-- &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1892144&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;US EPA study on effects of IQ detriment&lt;/a&gt; due to mercury poisoning in children.

6 IQ points = about US$120K? Check my math, please.

But seriously, you all need to read the whole article. The chick is not actually be-otching about breastfeeding - that&#039;s an excuse. Read it with skirt-eyes and pay attention to the inter-text.

It&#039;s filled with rage against her husband, what she perceives as inequality in her marriage. The kids &amp; breast-feeding is really an excuse to beat her husband with a stick in public. The nut graf:

&quot;About seven years ago, I met a woman from Montreal, the sister-in-law of a friend, who was young and healthy and normal in every way, except that she refused to breast-feed her children. She wasn’t working at the time. She just felt that breast-feeding would set up an unequal dynamic in her marriage — one in which the mother, who was responsible for the very sustenance of the infant, would naturally become responsible for everything else as well. At the time, I had only one young child, so I thought she was a kooky Canadian — and selfish and irresponsible. But of course now I know she was right. I recalled her with sisterly love a few months ago, at three in the morning, when I was propped up in bed for the second time that night with my new baby (note the my). My husband acknowledged the ripple in the nighttime peace with a grunt, and that’s about it. And why should he do more? There’s no use in both of us being a wreck in the morning. Nonetheless, it’s hard not to seethe.&quot;

Yikes! Um, Ms. Rosin, if you actually stopped whining like a wimpy victim about the choices you yourself have made, accepting that you were a full moral agent, &lt;em&gt;and further&lt;/em&gt; if you had any respect for your husband as a human being - you would just hire a nanny, get thee to couples counseling, and thus not have to castrate him in public to express your scary anger.

Articles like this make me really ashamed to be a heterosexual feminist sometimes.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Johnathan Graehl</p>
<p>&#8220;<em>6 points</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Trasande et al. used a value for lifetime earnings (in 2000 dollars) of $1,032,002 for males and $763,468 for females based on the work of Max et al. (2004). . . .Both the U.S. EPA and Trasande use the work of Salkever (1995) to estimate the effect that one IQ point decrement has on earnings. Because the Trasande earnings are sex specific, the authors use Salkever’s sex-specific results. For each IQ point decrement, males experience a 1.93% decrease in lifetime earnings and females experience a 3.23% decrease.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211; <a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1892144" rel="nofollow">US EPA study on effects of IQ detriment</a> due to mercury poisoning in children.</p>
<p>6 IQ points = about US$120K? Check my math, please.</p>
<p>But seriously, you all need to read the whole article. The chick is not actually be-otching about breastfeeding &#8211; that&#8217;s an excuse. Read it with skirt-eyes and pay attention to the inter-text.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s filled with rage against her husband, what she perceives as inequality in her marriage. The kids &#038; breast-feeding is really an excuse to beat her husband with a stick in public. The nut graf:</p>
<p>&#8220;About seven years ago, I met a woman from Montreal, the sister-in-law of a friend, who was young and healthy and normal in every way, except that she refused to breast-feed her children. She wasn’t working at the time. She just felt that breast-feeding would set up an unequal dynamic in her marriage — one in which the mother, who was responsible for the very sustenance of the infant, would naturally become responsible for everything else as well. At the time, I had only one young child, so I thought she was a kooky Canadian — and selfish and irresponsible. But of course now I know she was right. I recalled her with sisterly love a few months ago, at three in the morning, when I was propped up in bed for the second time that night with my new baby (note the my). My husband acknowledged the ripple in the nighttime peace with a grunt, and that’s about it. And why should he do more? There’s no use in both of us being a wreck in the morning. Nonetheless, it’s hard not to seethe.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yikes! Um, Ms. Rosin, if you actually stopped whining like a wimpy victim about the choices you yourself have made, accepting that you were a full moral agent, <em>and further</em> if you had any respect for your husband as a human being &#8211; you would just hire a nanny, get thee to couples counseling, and thus not have to castrate him in public to express your scary anger.</p>
<p>Articles like this make me really ashamed to be a heterosexual feminist sometimes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Graehl</title>
		<link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385385</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Graehl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2009/04/faith-in-breasts.html#comment-385385</guid>
		<description>6 points gets you another correct answer on an iq test, obviously.  That&#039;s worth a lot of kittens.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>6 points gets you another correct answer on an iq test, obviously.  That&#8217;s worth a lot of kittens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
