Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Vescape-Eelocity t1_j4qetrs wrote

The article says the results were independent of socioeconomic status, so they apparently controlled for that, but I'm still a bit suspicious too because we already know that wealth literally improves every aspect of a person's life already.

I think I'd have a fair amount of skepticism unless they proved the direct causal relationship, or maybe if they were still able to find the same correlation when looking at poor rural families and wealthy inner city families without many green areas (I feel like this is rare for wealthy people, but it does exist). I feel like controlling for things like diet, exercise, etc would be extremely difficult in that case too.


mydogisacloud t1_j4qpfz8 wrote

AllI know is I live in a very socio economic diverse suburb city with lots of greenery. The Pacific Northwest is pretty green everywhere and the suburbs always felt like forest cities.


Bulzeeb t1_j4ssxiv wrote

Let's keep in mind that the study was only testing for something very specific (the diversity of HMOs), not for any direct benefits or general wellness like the press release article speculates. So the question isn't "should we expect rich people to have this good thing" (not actually tested), but rather, "should we expect rich people to be more likely to be exposed to areas with high biodiversity and low human impact", which were the main factors linked to HMO diversity. Which isn't necessarily the case.