In a word, yes.

I'd push back on the word "inappropriate" specifically though. Whether they are inappropriate is a matter of context; in the context of a discussion about a study published in Nature Neuroscience, an anecdote that supports a causal relationship between the research and unsubstantiated interpretations of the data is inappropriate, in my opinion.

I think the disconnect here is a difference of approach - I am approaching this discussion as one of analysis, while there are other commenters approaching this as a friendly conversation. There's no right or wrong there, but I feel compelled to point out that the latter approach is how biased data frequently becomes parroted without real support in the original research.

In your original comment, you mentioned that your wife exhibited a significant personality change that appears to match the article. You also point out that you realize this is an anecdote. However, there is research[1][2] that demonstrates people will begin to internalize what they continually read, regardless of whether or not they know it is not true. In a discussion about a loaded topic such as pregnancy, where people are commiserating with each other or exchanging anecdotes, my claim is that it is not merely enough to acknowledge that the anecdote doesn't represent datum. Rather, that will not do anything to prevent the anecdote from having a positive impact on the audience's impression of the research (positive here used in the dialectic sense).

Of course, I'll admit I'm a stickler for this. Whether or not this is a point worth making in subsequent threads is up to the HN upvote/downvote roll :)

________________________

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418

2. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/xge0...