
Surprise DNA Results Are Turning Customer-Service Reps into Therapists - laurex
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-12-19/surprise-dna-results-are-turning-customer-service-reps-into-therapists
======
chriselles
Beyond issues of unexpected ancestry, I’ve also found anecdotal examples of
negative feedback resulting from customers unhappy with the results they
receive from companies like Teloyears.

Teloyears measures the length of telemeres that may be an indication of
genetic aging(as opposed to chronological aging).

Before I had the test done I checked on Teloyears feedback and reviews and
most negative reviews consistently included people upset that their Teloyears
estimate of genetic aging coming in higher than their chronological age.

I’m guessing people just want to be told what they want to hear.

------
azinman2
Saying “this is science” alone as an answer to the validity is really doing
science a disfavor. Not only are these consumer grade tests, but there’s been
a lot of evidence of the fallibility of DNA testing (particularly for crime
scene analysis) in recent years, let alone the fact that everything they show
is based on models that are constantly updated and effectively best guesses. I
really wish they’d be more upfront but it’d probably be too big a challenge to
sweeping in new customers.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Is the science bad or are some labs just sloppy/malicious?

~~~
ethelward
On on hand, the science itself is a quickly moving field; on the other one,
the more precise tests kits are far more expensive.

So these societies have to make compromises.

------
technofiend
If ask Reddit is anything to go by this is slowly becoming normal. You have to
wonder if 20-30 years from now mores will have shifted to reflect the reality
that there are often familial buried secrets of every kind out there.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/search?q=Dna&restrict_sr=...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/search?q=Dna&restrict_sr=on)

~~~
lallysingh
There was a study in the UK some decades ago showing that roughly 30% of kids
weren't from the father's they thought they were.

I got this reference indirectly from The Red Queen, an interesting book. It's
packed away, so I can't give anything more specific.

~~~
danieltillett
The non-paternatity rate is very class dependant. In the upper-middle the rate
is quite low, but in the underclasses it can get up to around 20%.

~~~
iguy
No way, 1-2% is more like the range. For the western world, for serious
studies e.g. tracking surnames vs Y chromosomes. Most much higher figures come
from counting only disputed cases, which are obviously going to be skewed.

Edit, some links:

Surname "Sykes":
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288207/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288207/)

Bone marrow:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22688803](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22688803)

~~~
danieltillett
Most people are not members of the underclass. Anyway you can't really use
historical data like this to estimate the non-paternity rate today.

~~~
iguy
Indeed the Sykes data is long-term history, and I think of a middle-class
sample. But it does teach us that received wisdom was badly wrong there, which
should make us less confident of the same wisdom elsewhere.

The bone marrow study was 2012, and no class has a monopoly on Leukemia. I
would not be surprised if there were a class gradient, but an average of under
2% doesn't leave room for a very big underclass to be scoring 20% or 30%.

These are England and Germany, things could be different elsewhere, I don't
know whether there is good data.

------
TomMckenny
interesting aside:

In education there is the issue of teaching mendelian genetics without causing
a massive stink when some of the kids show traits they couldn't get from both
parents.

This is often solved by intentionally avoiding real examples and using
contrived examples that are not mendelian like eye color.

~~~
prepend
A friend of mine caused a huge stink in her village when she pointed out how
two siblings had blue eyes but all parents and grandparents had brown eyes.
There was much chaos.

~~~
jules
Let's analyse that. Suppose the frequency of the blue eye gene and the brown
eye gene are the same in the general population, and suppose the prior
probability of cheating is 10%. Then we can simulate this:

    
    
        from random import random, randint
        p_blue = 0.5
        p_cheat = 0.1
        
        def randbool(p): return random() < p
        def randgenes(): return randbool(p_blue), randbool(p_blue)
        def mate(mother, father): return mother[randint(0,1)], father[randint(0,1)]
        def blueeyes(p): return p[0] and p[1]
        
        n_cheat = 0
        n_faithful = 0
        for i in range(0,1000000):
            mother = (True,False)
            grandfather = randgenes()
            grandmother = randgenes()
            husband = mate(grandfather, grandmother)
            lover = randgenes()
            cheated = randbool(p_cheat)
            if cheated:
                kid1 = mate(mother, lover)
                kid2 = mate(mother, lover)
            else:
                kid1 = mate(mother, husband)
                kid2 = mate(mother, husband)
        
            if blueeyes(grandmother) or blueeyes(grandfather) or blueeyes(husband) or not blueeyes(kid1) or not blueeyes(kid2): continue
        
            if cheated: n_cheat += 1
            else: n_faithful += 1
        
        print(n_cheat)
        print(n_faithful)
    

We get 4619 times cheated and 14226 times faithful. The probability of
cheating went up substantially relative to the prior of 10%, but it's still
below 30%. I'd say that the chaos wasn't justified.

~~~
jzylstra
Eye color is non-mendelian.

~~~
jules
If you know a more accurate model you can change the four functions at the
top.

------
c3534l
I don't know if this is apocryphal or not, but I'd always heard the same thing
happened in the 50s when blood typing became widely available. So I don't
think anyone in that industry should be exactly surprised at this particular
result.

~~~
tvjoyfbhde
When a sick child needs a transplant, the parents are the first to be checked
for compatibility. Sometimes the results are impossible. The policy in such
cases simply to inform the putative father that he's not a match and leave it
at that.

------
berbec
This has to be a really tough call center job. People don't want to trust what
you're telling them. Who is going to believe their father/brother/sister
isn't?

~~~
joaomacp
At the end of the day, what difference does it make? You can't change the
past. Also I'm pretty sure knowledge like "he's not my real father" will stay
in the back of your mind and pop up from time to time, making things awkward
for a long time.

~~~
goldcd
Well it's always up to you if you consider your genetic parent, your "real
father" \- sperm donors, adoption, hospital mix-ups, affairs, early death, re-
marriage blah blah. No shortage of reasons why you one of your 'parental
figures' might not be 50% genetically related to you - and conversely I'm
absolutely fine with anybody who rejects a genetic parent as they're an
arsehole. Taking all of that in, you get to pick who cared for you and you
choose to reciprocate with the parental nominative. Genetic stuff is just some
nice to have information, along with what's more likely to kill you than
average and how friendly your progenitors were with the local neanderthals.

I think maybe it boils down to some people always wanting to know (me) and
others who don't (whatever it is) - and you've probably self-selected when you
clicked all the boxes as you spat into a tube.

~~~
stordoff
> Well it's always up to you if you consider your genetic parent, your "real
> father"

Exactly the situation I'm in, with both a parent and a grandparent, and it's
always boiled down to these people have had a significant impact on my life,
and these people have not. I don't understand the obsession with genetics -
the thought "he's not my real father" has never once crossed my mind.

------
LinuxBender
Somewhat off-topic: Instead of dealing with these companies, what equipment
and software would I need to do my own DNA testing at home? Has anyone written
any open source applications that can interpret this data?

------
lewispb
This is a whole professional discipline and should be left as such.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_counseling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_counseling)

------
anigbrowl
I really wish this article provided some insight on how much these people are
being paid. 95% of the job may be lightweight customer service but providing
emotional labor ot people in distress if quite demanding on the provider,
regardless of how much training they're given.

~~~
toyg
It’s a puff piece for dna-testing companies, designed to put doubts in your
mind so you’ll go and get tested. Nobody really cares about the workers.

------
malhotrag
BBC's "The Documentary Podcast" covered the same subject in a recent episode.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06w68bs](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06w68bs)

------
AchieveLife
A somber example that life finds a way.

------
lostmsu
Literal quote from that click-bait: "We don’t really play the role of
therapist"

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
Full quote

 _“We don’t really play the role of therapist, but rather listen and try to be
sympathetic and empathetic, getting them to process things,”_

That’s... that’s basically therapy.

~~~
Retric
It might be Hollywood therapy, but real world therapists are not limited to
that.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
My experience of Hollywood therapy is that it’s nothing like that, and in fact
tends to be either highly confrontational, or involves magical insights from
the therapist which have an almost immediate effect, and are invariably
accepted with little resistance. The reality that therapy is mostly one person
talking while another listens, nudging them make their own insights and
helping people process difficult emotions and experiences.

Of course that’s not the whole practice of psychology or psychiatry, but it is
most of what “therapy” (i.e. talk therapy) is.

~~~
Retric
The Hollywood part is focusing on the conversation.

Journaling for example is a common technique that’s part of therapy and
outside of what you’re describing. Talking without actions outside of therapy
is mostly an expensive hobby. And those nudges are critical for people to
actually have direction as to how to attempt to make change.

You do bring up the other issue I have with Hollywood therapy. Therapists
don’t need deep incite into how you think to come up with some unique solution
tailored to you. It’s more like a dentist convincing you that you really do
need to both brush your teeth and floss. Rather than a doctor giving you some
antibiotics for a week and everything is fine again.

PS: Though this is from the CBT side of things.

------
russley
Obligatory: Don't take non-medical DNA tests.

