If you want to direct resources to groups "likely to experience violence" based on other statistics anyway, then you don't need this type of research to do it. And if you're going to use this type of research in support of that, then it is just as important that it's accurate as it would be if you were using it at an individual level.
The parent comment called out "puny sample sizes." That would be relevant to the "statistical purposes" suggested by the child comment.
It's bad in a very different way, with a different level of impact. And there are ethical issues with that kind of use even if the research is right which don't exist with the broad statements they were suggesting.
> If you want to direct resources to groups "likely to experience violence" based on other statistics anyway, then you don't need this type of research to do it.
You do if you're trying to convince people to allocate the money, because longer lasting damage makes it more important.
> And if you're going to use this type of research in support of that, then it is just as important that it's accurate as it would be if you were using it at an individual level.
It's not. The consequences of screwing up individual diagnoses are much worse than the consequences of a funding campaign having a false premise.
Incorrect. The parent comment was talking about using epigenetic measurements of specific people to decide if they get resources. The child comment was not talking about doing that, instead saying that this research can be used to argue for more resources in general.
The only mention of demographics in the child comment was about groups likely to experience violence. Those groups would have no markers. It would be purely about how we can most effectively reduce violence.
The only measurements suggested in the child comment would be for statistical purposes.