It might be one of the cases where correlation doesn't imply causation. For an objective study, we would need to assign children to groups randomly. Otherwise, we can miss various obscure selection effects. (For example, if children who are more likely to be scouts, are also likely to be from a particular socioeconomic background).
Definitely. This is exactly the sort of study you strongly expect the causal conclusion to not obtain and disappear in a randomized study/genetically-sensitive design (anxiety and other mental issues are highly heritable, of course), right up there with such classic sociology non-results as 'children whose fathers leave do worse' or 'children who experience corporal punishment have more behavioral problems' or 'children whose mothers drank during pregnancy are stupider', both because the actual randomized studies of things like early-childhood interventions like Headstart show no effects or fadeout and because there is tons of self-selection in who goes into scouting and who is able to/chooses to stay in it. (Most of the kids who joined with me dropped out at some point, and the more troubled ones dropped out earliest.) Like most of these results, I expect most of the correlation would disappear if you compared siblings, or better yet (but harder to find), discordant twins, or used polygenic scores of genetic risk for anxiety disorders. This study couldn't do it because they took a one-week sample of UK births so no siblings and too few twins, but I'm sure a twin registry or the UK Biobank or someone has asked about extracurriculars like scouting.
And oh yes, since scouting tends to be a family thing where if one son is enrolled in Boy Scouts, the other sons will be too, that means any supposed causal effect of Boy Scouts would fall under 'shared environment' estimates from family & twin designs, which measure the influence of all variables influencing entire families such as parenting choices. And shared environment estimates for anxiety and mental health disorders in general are almost always small. So... if taken at face value, the choice of Boy Scouting or not could explain most or all of a family's influence on anxiety! This seems highly improbable, to say the least.
A gwern classic - the second sentence of this wall of text contains 112 words and 14 verbs. I think your tendency to include tons of parenthetical remarks, caveats and every example you can think of, confuses the reader and makes it hard to figure out your essential point.
They analysed data from a long-running study of almost 10,000 people across the UK who were born in November 1958.They found that 28 per cent of the study’s participants had been involved in the Scouts or Guides, and that these were 15 per cent less likely to suffer from anxiety or mood disorders at the age of 50 than their peers who didn’t join.Scouts or Guides were not more likely to come from families of any particular social status.However, people from poorer backgrounds do have a relatively higher likelihood of mental illness – but this effect seemed to be reduced or even removed in those who attended Scouts or Guides.
There is a selection bias issue here. E.g. if there were some underling genetic disorder that causes anxiety, then that person is less likely to join a group.
Yep, the bias is that all of the scouts came from households that decided to enroll their kid/s in the scouts. This is not a joke, and there is a difference in value systems and other factors that cut across cliché dimensions like socio-economic status.
As a former scout leader, I think there is also another effect at play. In my experience parents often send children to scouts when they don't fit into more mainstream team sports and when children are struggling to make friends elsewhere.
These children are often particularly socially awkward. I'm not an expert but I think that this group of children may be more predisposed to mental illness.
Yes, this seems likely. Even putting aside fine-grained value differences, a friend of mine put it this way: "Kids of parents who don't care enough go to summer camp, kids of parents who care too much go to scouts." (Referring, mostly, to the average expected levels of parental involvement.)
My daughter did Sparks & Brownies and it ended up being a big clique of kids who all went to the same church & school and in the end she (a hyper sensitive, artistic, intellectual type child and a more solitary, introverted type) hated it and asked to quit it.
I went through the same thing with Scouts when I was a boy.
The kids that remain after the first couple years of cute crafts and silly games are the kids who like following along with group activities, like doing group organization stuff, and deal well with social groups and (often) cliques.
Basically like sports, like a lot of elementary-level school (and a lot of other things in our society) -- the "odd" kids are selected against.
So no surprise there's "good mental health" for people who are good at conforming to the norm. Because that's literally the definition of "good mental health" encoded in the DSM.
A disorder there is a deviation from the norm.
Yeh. The paper claims to have controlled for this by comparing against kids in other groups, I suspect that might not be a very good control. E.g. if your daughter went on to join a different type of group that she did fit in with better, then that's a very clear selection bias. If I'm understanding correctly their control assumes kids just randomly select a group then stick with it.
Consider this; if those kids that would normally avoid scouts/guide were now forced to go because their parents saw reports of this study, then the effects could very well be negative, in turn cancelling out or even reversing the reported overall beneficial effects.
1. Define mental health in terms of adherence to the mean.
2. Find a group where adherence to the mean is mandatory in order to continue in the group.
3. Success, the group makes you mentally healthy!
Eh, I would say most new scouts are pretty anxious, and they also potentially come with other issues like asthma that likes to flare up, seizures, diabetes, etc. having had to deal with patrol members with these issues, sometimes 2 having one of these issues at the same time out of a group of 6 or 7.
Generally you deal with it as quickly & safely as possible, get the rest of your patrol to rally and do what is needed to get said person into a stable state, while sending one member to alert your assistant scoutmaster so that further help can be at the ready. That doesn't mean you get to shirk off and not go get his asthma meds, or get the guy with hypothermia some wool clothing and figure out a way to get him warmed up in short order (throw 3 people in a sleeping bag, or a warm (but not hot!) shower if you are lucky to have one).
You're conflating 'experiencing anxiety' with 'some underlying condition that increases the tendency to experience anxiety (and it's severity)'. The first cohort is a subgroup of the second.
Or just switch anxiety for depression - i.e. everyday depression and 'clinical' depression are not the same thing.
On "Cotton Kills", George Boole (of Boolean algebra) died of pneumonia brought on by his wife's superstitious belief that wet bedsheets were the best cure for a chill that was caused by being caught in the rain.
Part of it is you are forced to work through those kinds of issues in a hostile environment (outdoors, in the cold & wet with raccoons, bears, etc depending where your at) with other kids who are apt to get on your nerves after a while. Either you come out a more rounded person who can deal with shit blowing up in your face & making something amazing out of said explosion, or you stop showing up to go on monthly outings.
Most states in the US have no bears. Even California, which has a Grizzly on their state flag, has the joke "There is one more bear on the state flag that there is in the state of California"
Not only from a socioeconomic point of view, but I would guess that having parents who are involved enough in a child's life to pay for, drive to, and participate in these types of activities is more likely to be a source of a "mental health boost"
This is what I was going to say - suspect this stems from having parents or guardians who cared enough to get you involved in such an activity, and the environment that suggests, rather than scouting directly.
There's a lot to be said for going for a 3-day hike in the wilderness, even if you're accompanied by a parent.
Going with a scout group usually means that you wont be relying on the parent as you want to stay as a member of the group of people your own age.
You'll start to feel tired and sore at some stage, and it may start to rain. But if you've prepared properly (and the scout motto is "be prepared"), then you should be ok.
It's just a matter of getting away from it all, and perhaps embracing the suck as mentioned above.
It's true - but I scouted for years and still turned out neurotic and anxious - but I had dismissive parents who I only spent a few months or so with throughout my childhood.
This is probably true, and why Oregon just passed Outdoor School for All [0]. It's not exactly the same as scouts and guides but it is a guaranteed week-long outdoor education to every student in Oregon.
>It might be one of the cases where correlation doesn't imply causation.
This was my first thought. I would bet it has more to do with the kind of parents who would enroll their kids in scouts (either for socioeconomic reasons as you mentioned or maybe just whatever else that means about the type of parents they are)
An RCT for this would literally be insane. "Sign up and we might abduct your kid on Thursdays from 7-9pm, as well as 8-10 weekends/year."
Please though, give the researchers some credit. Controlling for demographic factors is sort of the bare minimum for something like this--which they attempted to do by including two "social position" factors in the model.
They also included some factors relating to childhood (presumably pre-Scouts) mental health, which might also help address selection bias.
That's true, but that study will probably never happen. You can expect that to be one of the top comments on any article like this on HN. It's a speed vs. accuracy problem though. The correlation between global temperatures and human CO2 emissions doesn't mean causation, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't useful info paired with common sense.
Definitely agree with that. The socioeconomic background does make a difference.
In my city, the schools in the lower economic status did not even have a scouts/guides program and the ones that did were mostly in schools where the middle class/upper middle class kids went to.
They did try to compensate for such things, but I always wonder if studies can compensate enough. Two households with the same income can have very different socioeconomic status, which may influence both mental health and the amount of scouting.
This is so common nowadays. Looks like clicks are more important than meaningful information and it is sad that such journalism hits thought to be credible entities like BBC.
This. So many studies fail to even mention this now. Next time you see a study on the health benefits of some new type of exercise for example, it's worth checking that the results aren't explained by the healthy group simply being more inclined to exercise (see also: less sleep leads to a shorter life, anxiety leads to health problems, etc)
I'm biased to pile on too social science studies but the study in question made efforts to address these considerations.
From another article [0]:
"On average, scouts and guides were 15 per cent less likely to
have developed mental illness or depression by middle age,
even those from poorer backgrounds whose initial risk was higher."
Wealth correlates with parental involvement but not at 1.0 - in other words, if parental involvement is a confounding variable (most likely given its established effect on mental health), correcting for wealth won't eliminate it.
This is almost certainly the case. Being a scout/guide strongly correlates with parental income in the US at least – I don't know how it is in the UK. But if that is true, the headline might as well be "Being rich provides a mental health boost for life".
My scouts (was Scoutmaster for 20 years) definitely did not fit the 'rich kid' profile. Farm kids, rural community, parents working 2 jobs or driving a truck.
We went to mountains, deserts, rivers and lakes. We swam in a lake on an island in a lake. We canoed, hiked, camped, cooked, woodworked, laughed and ran.
Our Troop tried to keep event costs down to around $15, so everybody could participate. Succeeded for the most part. And we did regular fundraisers so anybody who wanted to go, had a way to get there.
Scout Troops can be expensive too. Our district has that kind. That can drive the perception of the demographic. But our Troop was top-rated in our District for years. And not because of money. It was because our youth led a very rigorous program, invested themselves in it, and expected a lot from one another.
That's actually the whole point of Scouting - getting the youth invested in something worthwhile. In the process, modeling behaviors and training skills and leadership.
Depends on your troop, I know by far we were the best funded troop in our council, but that was purely due to the area we were able to sell christmas trees in. Without that, we would not have been able to get half our troop to go on trips, or get the proper gear (wool clothing, a good pack, tent, sleeping pad, etc) due to a lack of affordability.
I do feel bad for the other troops in our area though, I know at least 2 folded while we were going strong, one got kicked out of the district cause the BSA hates gay scoutmasters, and the other had no place to meet and severe funding issues. Running a troop requires a ton of parental involvement and effort, and outside the Mormons most troops are dying in the US.
It is really quite sad, but I get why. None of the gay guys in my troop could participate in leadership due to the BSA's policies at the time, and in a small troop that is lethal, you need every warm body that is willing to do the fundraising, planning, organizing, paperwork, etc. and they are few and far between
Our Troop required only a little parental involvement. The youth leadership decided most things. The parents were needed to drive, to serve on the committee (one meeting a month). It helps to have a strong Patrol Leader Council.
The gay youth in my Troop never had a problem taking leadership roles. The BSA national (read: Mormon) policy was no gay Adult leaders?
> My scouts (was Scoutmaster for 20 years) definitely did not fit the 'rich kid' profile. Farm kids, rural community, parents working 2 jobs or driving a truck.
Stuff like "farm community....2 jobs" tends to obscure actual family income. Do you know what income percentile they were in?
> driving a truck
The median annual wage for a trucker in the US is $73,000.
This is not to doubt your comment -- just to put it in some perspective. Until you compare it to the whole country, you might just be saying that they were at the upper end of the middle class, but just didn't fit an idealized profile of a rich person that you have mentally imbibed.
At least in my area I do not have an impression that scout kids are from richer families than all school kids (which should be a pretty good reference point; a little lower maybe because some of the richer parents take their kids to private schools).
I do see scouts take lots of active outside trips which can help with mental balance. Doing white water rafting, being thrown overboard, fighting elements, being cold and wet, seeing occasional physical injuries and the beauty of the stars in a desert can put minor life disappointments into perspective for a long long time. My 2c.
Here in Germany it is the same. Being a scout/guide strongly correlates with high(er) parental income, high(er) education and having no migratory background.
(This is not just anecdotal but are findings that the RDP (Ring of German scout organizations) made a couple years ago.)
I have observed the opposite in my son's scout troop. None of the kids come from "wealthy" families. Some are very poor in fact. It is all about parental involvement. These kids have parents or grandparents that see the value in having their children involved in an organization focused on character building, team building, being a good citizen, and doing your best in life. Our troop is a beacon of positivity, fun, respect, and focus on doing the right thing.
