Guess the 10 states w lowest life expectancy

[Comshaw]

These things are pretty much always bogus because of who gets to define the metrics.

They do not tell you a thing and most states are basically rural red and big-city blue.

The motorboating doesn't suit you. An off-the-cuff dismissal by you of what's presented doesn't dismiss the veracity of the report. In case you couldn't or didn't go looking for it here's a link to the study:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-1-508.pdf

No she wasn't. she was trying to point out to you that this thread was doing exactly that. Is she inarticulate? indisputably. Is she wrong? not when you look at her underlying point which is correlation does not equal causation.

No, correlation does not ALWAYS mean causation, but it also does not mean there isn't a link. And in this case a very strong indication of a link. With the limited amount of information we are dealing with using Occum's Razor (The simplest explanation is usually the correct one) seems to be in order. If only one of the top states were run by Republicans, or one of the bottom was Democraticly led, I'd say yeah this might not be the case. But when all ten of the states in the first list are led by one party and all ten of those in the second list by the other me thinks, My Dear Watson, there might be a large correlation.


Comshaw

 

[Dribble]

I'm not who you think I am. Honestly I don't actually hate you but I do hate when we as the left engage in sloppy arguments and sloppy thinking because it leaves us vulnerable. There's plenty of good reasons to vote Dem. Let's focus on those.

Sorry...the math isn't sloppy. What is sloppy is your attempt to make a statement that it is.

 

[Dribble]

Let's start this again.

I have a coin. It is a fair coin. I am going to flip it and record what comes up...heads or tails.

The probability of getting a head is 0.5...the probability of getting a tail is 0.5.

Each coin flip is independent of all other flips. So if I flip the coin 10 times...each flip is independent.

So the probability of flipping a fair coin 10 times and getting 10 heads in a row...is (0.5)^10

Are we all in agreement?

Now...I make heads denote a Democrat led state...does not matter what state...and tails denote a Republican led state ...and I flip the coin 10 times...and I record the outcome. Has the probability changed from (0.5)^10 to get the same result 10 times in a row? Do we still agree?

Now we have two lists..**** 10 and bottom 10 for states based on life expectancy. We know that the probability of getting a list consisting of 10 Democrat led, or 10 Republican led states, given each choice was random and independent is (0.5)^10. Not very likely. It can happen. It does happen...but when it does happen, one immediately starts checking their parameters because probability says it shouldn't happen. Not randomly.

So that means...the states on the 2 lists are either not random or the probability is not 0.5 but something much greater. And that is the point.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Oh my what pretty eyes you have.

The beat down came from my previous post to you, idiot.

 

[siobhancan99]

The motorboating doesn't suit you. An off-the-cuff dismissal by you of what's presented doesn't dismiss the veracity of the report. In case you couldn't or didn't go looking for it here's a link to the study:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-1-508.pdf




No, correlation does not ALWAYS mean causation, but it also does not mean there isn't a link. And in this case a very strong indication of a link. With the limited amount of information we are dealing with using Occum's Razor (The simplest explanation is usually the correct one) seems to be in order. If only one of the top states were run by Republicans, or one of the bottom was Democraticly led, I'd say yeah this might not be the case. But when all ten of the states in the first list are led by one party and all ten of those in the second list by the other me thinks, My Dear Watson, there might be a large correlation.


Comshaw

The truth of the matter is that life expectancy is complicated. Urban is higher than rural in part because of gneeral education levels and in part it faster to make it to a hospital. Those at the top of the life expectancy chain are also not likely to be receiving any real benefit from democratic policies. Increased social safety net, increased access to healthcare for the poor etc doesn't factor into their life expectancy increase because they have private insurance and a high income. They also tend to be less likely to smoke, or engage in drug and alcohol abuse. That has nothing to do with their politics or the politics of their state.

Higher income people are drawn to currently democratic led areas because of the amenities. It's important to note that that was true even in bygone eras where the political control of those states was not democratic. It is not logical to assume that democratic control causes increased life expectancy based on the information you have (i.e. the list). The previous sentence also doesn't make it untrue that it is possible that democrat policies are to thank. You just can't take the individual piece of information offered and extract a cause out of it in a vacuum, and pretending you can doesn't get us anywhere. Is the connection likely? I think so in that those policies likely extend the lifespan of those at the bottom in a way that skews total life expectancy numbers higher, but I can't say that the bulk of the skew isn't from an increased concentration of wealthy educated people (which includes republicans who also live a long time due to wealth and education).

 

[Dribble]

Read this again...

Let's start this again.

I have a coin. It is a fair coin. I am going to flip it and record what comes up...heads or tails.

The probability of getting a head is 0.5...the probability of getting a tail is 0.5.

Each coin flip is independent of all other flips. So if I flip the coin 10 times...each flip is independent.

So the probability of flipping a fair coin 10 times and getting 10 heads in a row...is (0.5)^10

Are we all in agreement?

Now...I make heads denote a Democrat led state...does not matter what state...and tails denote a Republican led state ...and I flip the coin 10 times...and I record the outcome. Has the probability changed from (0.5)^10 to get the same result 10 times in a row? Do we still agree?

Now we have two lists..**** 10 and bottom 10 for states based on life expectancy. We know that the probability of getting a list consisting of 10 Democrat led, or 10 Republican led states, given each choice was random and independent is (0.5)^10. Not very likely. It can happen. It does happen...but when it does happen, one immediately starts checking their parameters because probability says it shouldn't happen. Not randomly.

So that means...the states on the 2 lists are either not random or the probability is not 0.5 but something much greater. And that is the point.

 

[siobhancan99]

Let's start this again.

I have a coin. It is a fair coin. I am going to flip it and record what comes up...heads or tails.

The probability of getting a head is 0.5...the probability of getting a tail is 0.5.

Each coin flip is independent of all other flips. So if I flip the coin 10 times...each flip is independent.

So the probability of flipping a fair coin 10 times and getting 10 heads in a row...is (0.5)^10

Are we all in agreement?

Now...I make heads denote a Democrat led state...does not matter what state...and tails denote a Republican led state ...and I flip the coin 10 times...and I record the outcome. Has the probability changed from (0.5)^10 to get the same result 10 times in a row? Do we still agree?

Now we have two lists..**** 10 and bottom 10 for states based on life expectancy. We know that the probability of getting a list consisting of 10 Democrat led, or 10 Republican led states, given each choice was random and independent is (0.5)^10. Not very likely. It can happen. It does happen...but when it does happen, one immediately starts checking their parameters because probability says it shouldn't happen. Not randomly.

So that means...the states on the 2 lists are either not random or the probability is not 0.5 but something much greater. And that is the point.

the problem is the situation is more like this. You have a theory that the coin will always come up heads due to weight. You and I are standing in the room. You close your eyes and blind yourself to everything else happening in the room. You flip the coin. For all you know i could be catching the coin and placing it on the floor so it comes up heads every time. Despite that, you view it coming up heads as proof that the coin is weighted such to control the flip because you've ignored all other potential factors.

I've read what you've posted ad nauseum and it remains as unsound as the first time you posted it. My lack of agreement is not lack of understanding. Maybe next time try it with a "well actually" first.

 

[Dribble]

the problem is the situation is more like this. You have a theory that the coin will always come up heads due to weight. You and I are standing in the room. You close your eyes and blind yourself to everything else happening in the room. You flip the coin. For all you know i could be catching the coin and placing it on the floor so it comes up heads every time. Despite that, you view it coming up heads as proof that the coin is weighted such to control the flip because you've ignored all other potential factors.

I've read what you've posted ad nauseum and it remains as unsound as the first time you posted it. My lack of agreement is not lack of understanding. Maybe next time try it with a "well actually" first.

Nah...not wasting my time with an obvious moron. Glad you vote Democrat but we don't need your vote. Think about giving your vote elsewhere. You embarrass us

 

[siobhancan99]

Nah...not wasting my time with an obvious moron. Glad you vote Democrat but we don't need your vote. Think about giving your vote elsewhere. You embarrass us

I'd say my sentiments exactly but you represent to me a trend I find troubling in the party, in that we've gone from coming to our conclusions based on rational thinking to being religious and brooking no dissent. I find your existence troubling for our future.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

I'd say my sentiments exactly but you represent to me a trend I find troubling in the party, in that we've gone from coming to our conclusions based on rational thinking to being religious and brooking no dissent. I find your existence troubling for our future.

What the fuck are you on? The thread proved the thread title. WTF are you still on about?

 

[Fermina_Daza]

My “shitty” state didn’t make either list. Yay for mediocrity, I suppose.

 

[siobhancan99]

What the fuck are you on? The thread proved the thread title. WTF are you still on about?

the thread doesn't "prove" the thread title because the thead title is a call to action. Nor does it prove the necessary implication of the original post. What I've been going on about throughout is that this is all lazy tribalist bullshit and we should be better than to take isolated information devoid of context and drawing unsupportable conclusions from that limited information. That remains true even if in the larger picture those conclusions turn out to be ultimately correct for other reasons. I'm not sure what about that was unclear.

 

[Dribble]

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

46th out of 193. What more needs to be said?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

the thread doesn't "prove" the thread title because the thead title is a call to action. Nor does it prove the necessary implication of the original post. What I've been going on about throughout is that this is all lazy tribalist bullshit and we should be better than to take isolated information devoid of context and drawing unsupportable conclusions from that limited information. That remains true even if in the larger picture those conclusions turn out to be ultimately correct for other reasons. I'm not sure what about that was unclear.

Facts and verified statistics are "a call to action" in your world?

 

[MimiRay]

The truth of the matter is that life expectancy is complicated. Urban is higher than rural in part because of gneeral education levels and in part it faster to make it to a hospital. Those at the top of the life expectancy chain are also not likely to be receiving any real benefit from democratic policies. Increased social safety net, increased access to healthcare for the poor etc doesn't factor into their life expectancy increase because they have private insurance and a high income. They also tend to be less likely to smoke, or engage in drug and alcohol abuse. That has nothing to do with their politics or the politics of their state.

Higher income people are drawn to currently democratic led areas because of the amenities. It's important to note that that was true even in bygone eras where the political control of those states was not democratic. It is not logical to assume that democratic control causes increased life expectancy based on the information you have (i.e. the list). The previous sentence also doesn't make it untrue that it is possible that democrat policies are to thank. You just can't take the individual piece of information offered and extract a cause out of it in a vacuum, and pretending you can doesn't get us anywhere. Is the connection likely? I think so in that those policies likely extend the lifespan of those at the bottom in a way that skews total life expectancy numbers higher, but I can't say that the bulk of the skew isn't from an increased concentration of wealthy educated people (which includes republicans who also live a long time due to wealth and education).

While the details of your post are essentially correct, they do not support your conclusion that politics is not a factor. Indeed, politics may not be the cause of the correlation, but it is inextricably tied to the causes, enough so to serve as a proxy indicator.

While we can't say that republicanism causes low life expectancy, we can say that poor education, low economic potential, lack of broader social awareness, narrow subculture identification, poor impulse control, authoritarian mindset, and poor health hygiene all are among the causes of lowered life expectancy. And the traits in the aggregate also make individuals vulnerable to Republican tropes.

So no, we can't simply say that there are no prosperous, educated and long-lived Republicans, but we CAN say that the Republican worldview tends to appeal disproportionately to those who display character traits that are likely to reduce their life expectancies and overall prosperity.

And those individuals, for whatever reasons, tend to be more concentrated in some states than others, and consequently, control the politics in those states.

 

[siobhancan99]

Facts and verified statistics are "a call to action" in your world?

the thread title is "Guess the 10 states w lowest life expectancy" which is devoid itself of statistics and is indeed a call to make a guess. Now I'm not sure what you find unclear about that.

 

[siobhancan99]

While the details of your post are essentially correct, they do not support your conclusion that politics is not a factor. Indeed, politics may not be the cause of the correlation, but it is inextricably tied to the causes, enough so to serve as a proxy indicator.

While we can't say that republicanism causes low life expectancy, we can say that poor education, low economic potential, lack of broader social awareness, narrow subculture identification, poor impulse control, authoritarian mindset, and poor health hygiene all are among the causes of lowered life expectancy. And the traits in the aggregate also make individuals vulnerable to Republican tropes.

So no, we can't simply say that there are no prosperous, educated and long-lived Republicans, but we CAN say that the Republican worldview tends to appeal disproportionately to those who display character traits that are likely to reduce their life expectancies and overall prosperity.

I don't say its not a factor. I say that with the information given it's not possible to draw a conclusion. I further go on to say I believe in it,but not for any information posted in this thread. I'm not attacking the notion that expansive government (which im in favor of) is good. I'm attacking the method of reaching that conclusion. How we get somewhere is important. When someone says "I've thought about it and the democrats record on gay and women's rights is important so i vote for them" I'm like "yay" and when someone says "i vote for democrats because that bastard Abraham Lincoln was a republican" I'm like "eww"

Reasons matter. Pithy made for twitter bullshit that seems to celebrate the cause without actually doing so isn't really helpful. it just motivates a following that was already going to draw the conclusion they should vote dem regardless of what anyone says.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

the thread title is "Guess the 10 states w lowest life expectancy" which is devoid itself of statistics and is indeed a call to make a guess. Now I'm not sure what you find unclear about that.

The stats are in the very first post with a link.

 

[siobhancan99]

The stats are in the very first post with a link.

Right but your claim was that the "thread proved the title"

You're either shifting the goalposts or not articulate enough to say what you're trying to convey. I can only respond to what's said to me, not what you wish you'd said to me in some alternate universe.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Right but your claim was that the "thread proved the title"

You're either shifting the goalposts or not articulate enough to say what you're trying to convey. I can only respond to what's said to me, not what you wish you'd said to me in some alternate universe.

Oh FFS. Your shitty critical thinking skills aren't my problem.

 

[Dribble]

the thread title is "Guess the 10 states w lowest life expectancy" which is devoid itself of statistics and is indeed a call to make a guess. Now I'm not sure what you find unclear about that.

Other than a link was also incorporated to an article that had a link to the original data. It isn't my fault the states on the top 10 all have predominantly Democrat leadership...nor that the states in the bottom 10 all have predominantly Republican leadership. I then went on to prove this was not random error or chance based on simple probability. A correlation, would have been inappropriate because of the binary classification associated with identifying the states. Of course....since you have a knowledge in statistics...I am confident you already knew this.

 

[siobhancan99]

Oh FFS. Your shitty critical thinking skills aren't my problem.

I hope you can hear my eyes rolling.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

I hope you can hear my eyes rolling.

No, but I can hear the marbles in your skull rattling.

 

[MimiRay]

I don't say its not a factor. I say that with the information given it's not possible to draw a conclusion. I further go on to say I believe in it,but not for any information posted in this thread. I'm not attacking the notion that expansive government (which im in favor of) is good. I'm attacking the method of reaching that conclusion. How we get somewhere is important. When someone says "I've thought about it and the democrats record on gay and women's rights is important so i vote for them" I'm like "yay" and when someone says "i vote for democrats because that bastard Abraham Lincoln was a republican" I'm like "eww"

Reasons matter. Pithy made for twitter bullshit that seems to celebrate the cause without actually doing so isn't really helpful. it just motivates a following that was already going to draw the conclusion they should vote dem regardless of what anyone says.

If you were an anthropologist from another planet who had no other contextual information besides that list, it would of course be impossible to make a conclusion from it. But most of those that will read the list are not in that position. They have a better knowledge of the claims that the Republican party has been making about itself for at least the last two or three generations, and can realize that the simple facts that the list illustrates are in total contradiction to those claims.

The Republicans have not been the party of Lincoln for a very long time, nor are they even now the party of Eisenhower. Their traditional claims to be the party of prosperity, responsibility, freedom, justice, or even mere conservatism no longer contain any credibility.

What the list illustrates, in the context of their longstanding claims, is that those claims are a lie.

 

[siobhancan99]

No, but I can hear the marbles in your skull rattling.

You are the SighLent of the left.