Guess the 10 states w lowest life expectancy

[siobhancan99]

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.

We live in a world of increasing specialization and an abundance of information. There's precious few people who can definitively draw that conclusion based on the information actually available inside their skulls and I'm willing to bet none of them have ever posted here. Like I said, I believe ultimately in the conclusion but I can't claim to be an expert on the subject such that I can look at what was posted by the OP and say with exact and metaphysical certitude that it is correct. i want it to be true and I'm inclined to believe it. That doesn't mean anything posted here genuinely supports it.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

You are the SighLent of the left.

Why don't you address the topic - why is there such a disproportionate set of numbers between red and blue states?

I know you're gonna back with, "That's not the that topic!" in a week deflection attempt so save that bullshit.

 

[siobhancan99]

Why don't you address the topic - why is there such a disproportionate set of numbers between red and blue states?

I know you're gonna back with, "That's not the that topic!" in a week deflection attempt so save that bullshit.

First off, I've already said as many times as I care to (and thus now, one more time than I care to) that ultimately i agree that the conclusion is probably accurate. That you remain purposefully obtuse on this point only goes to prove my assertion that you are the SighLent of the left. You are clearly a person who cannot let facts get in the way of his narrative or invective. There was a point in your life where you were basically a coin flip away from being a Trumper.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

First off, I've already said as many times as I care to (and thus now, one more time than I care to) that ultimately i agree that the conclusion is probably accurate. That you remain purposefully obtuse on this point only goes to prove my assertion that you are the SighLent of the left. You are clearly a person who cannot let facts get in the way of his narrative or invective. There was a point in your life where you were basically a coin flip away from being a Trumper.

So you're an idiot and also bad at determining people's thoughts.

 

[siobhancan99]

So you're an idiot and also bad at determining people's thoughts.

You're just deflecting, again, SighLent alt.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

You're just deflecting, again, SighLent alt.

You've been here ten minutes, fuck off, moron.

 

[MimiRay]

We live in a world of increasing specialization and an abundance of information. There's precious few people who can definitively draw that conclusion based on the information actually available inside their skulls and I'm willing to bet none of them have ever posted here. Like I said, I believe ultimately in the conclusion but I can't claim to be an expert on the subject such that I can look at what was posted by the OP and say with exact and metaphysical certitude that it is correct. i want it to be true and I'm inclined to believe it. That doesn't mean anything posted here genuinely supports it.

I completely disagree. This is not an esoteric specialist field that requires years of in-depth study. It's a simple comparison between claims that have been made publically, loudly, smugly, and repeatedly for all to hear, and for a very long time, vs a simple factual table that proves those claims false. It's a rebuttal.

Sure, if you take any rebuttal out of the argument within which it's presented, then it has no meaning. But in this case, you can't claim to be unfamiliar with the argument.

 

[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).

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.

You are arguing that with the information presented you can not make a determination that one factor has a major effect on the other. No one could draw a conclusion that one factor (the party in power) is the sole factor for an outcome (life expectancy) but you can determine if it IS a factor and generally (as opposed to a concrete specific number) how much of a factor it is using the three laws of probability.

1. The probability that two events will both occur can never be greater than the probability that each will occur individually.

2. If two possible events, A and B, are independent, then the probability that both A and B will occur is equal to the product of their individual probabilities.

3. If an event can have a number of different and distinct possible outcomes, A, B, C, and so on, then the probability that either A or B will occur is equal to the sum of the individual probabilities of A and B, and the sum of the probabilities of all the possible outcomes (A, B, C, and so on) is 1 (that is, 100 percent).

Law three doesn't apply because we are 100% sure which states have which party in control. also via the report, we know which states have a higher life expectancy.

Using law one, each of the 4 factors above gets a .25 possibility of happening because, with the information we have there are 4 possible outcomes: repubs/high life expectancy, repubs/low life expectancy, dems/high life expectancy, dems/low life expectancy.

Apply law two:
.25 (repubs in control) X .25 (low life expectancy) +.0625 (6.5%)
However this also happened 10 times: 10 (number of instances) X .0625 (calculation of instance happening once) = .625 (62.5%)

The same calculation holds true for the other side of this (dems/high life expectancy).

In other words we have a 62.5% chance that the factors involved are part of the causation.

But if you also want to know how likely it is for both those events happening we add the two products: .625 + .625 = 1.25 or 125% chance that the facts are connected,IE; one (leadership) is an influence on the other (life expectancy).

I understand that there can be and probably are other factors involved, but the laws of probability establish that the leadership of those states has a 125% chance of being a large factor in the life expectancy in each of those states.

That gave me a headache. Sorry but that's as far as my blue-collar mind can take this.

Comshaw