🇳🇱
Its almost like countries with unhealthy lifestyles like eating and exercise choices are going to spend more on healthcare and not live as long.... shocker.
@freemo @GossiTheDog @malwaretech
Yeah, it really is noteworthy how Americans choose to build crappy cities and crappy food regulations...
Who said anything about noteworthy. Its simply likely the reason the chart looks the way it looks.
For reasons I explained. People will generally pay anything to live a little longer. Combine that with the fact that when you have an unhealthy lifestyle money might buy you a bit of time, but its diminishing returns and all the money in the world wont buy the sort of full life a healthy lifestyle will.
So with the diminishing returns on spending on health combined with the unhealthy lifestyle this is exactly the way I'd expect a chart to display when it is done using bad scientific practices like not normalizing the data for lifestyle and cultural choices.
@malwaretech @GossiTheDog @freemo @juergen_hubert
> “People will generally pay anything to live a little longer.”
If that were true, you’d expect to see the rest of the OECD countries spending closer to US levels and getting even higher life expectancy gains than they already have, unless you assume they’ve maxed out what money can buy.
> “Combine that with the fact that when you have an unhealthy lifestyle money might buy you a bit of time, but its diminishing returns and all the money in the world wont buy the sort of full life a healthy lifestyle will.”
You haven’t done anything but assume there are lifestyle differences between the US and the rest of the OECD that causally produce lower life expectancy.
> “So with the diminishing returns on spending on health combined with the unhealthy lifestyle this is exactly the way I'd expect a chart to display when it is done using bad scientific practices like not normalizing the data for lifestyle and cultural choices.”
Earlier, you told me you hadn’t made any assumptions, but you’re assuming both different lifestyles and a causal relationship that you haven’t demonstrated either.
This chart is also what we’d expect to see if the US healthcare industry existed to extract revenue from Americans rather than to provide health outcomes.
> If that were true, you’d expect to see the rest of the OECD countries spending closer to US levels and getting even higher life expectancy gains than they already have, unless you assume they’ve maxed out what money can buy.
Not sure why OECD would be particularly specied here, they all have wildly different cultures and lifestyles. There is nothing about OECD that would suggest they have similar lifestyle characteristics as the USA. So any expectation that they would be similar seems like an absurd comparison. Chile for example doesnt have the unhealthy lifestyle of Americans.
So no this would be a very unreasonable expectation.
> You haven’t done anything but assume there are lifestyle differences between the US and the rest of the OECD that causally produce lower life expectancy.
Thats how science works, the burden of proof is not on me, its on the author of the chart. Posting bad science that fails to prove X does not put the buden on me to prove "not X", all I have to do is show why it was bad science (lack of normalization), the onus is on the author .
> Earlier, you told me you hadn’t made any assumptions, but you’re assuming both different lifestyles and a causal relationship that you haven’t demonstrated either.
No the other way around, the data is **assuming** the scenario I described is not possible by the act of not doing the correct analysis and normalizing for it. The onus is again ont he author to prove their assumptions, not on me to disprove their non-fact based assumptions (non-normalized data).
> This chart is also what we’d expect to see if the US healthcare industry existed to extract revenue from Americans rather than to provide health outcomes.
MAYBE, since it was done using bad-science we cant know that.. nor until they normalize properly and do good science.
@GossiTheDog @malwaretech @freemo @juergen_hubert
> “Not sure why OECD would be particularly specied here, they all have wildly different cultures and lifestyles.”
Citation?
“There is nothing about OECD that would suggest they have similar lifestyle characteristics as the USA. So any expectation that they would be similar seems like an absurd comparison. Chile for example doesnt have the unhealthy lifestyle of Americans.”
It’s fun to make things up.
“Thats how science works, the burden of proof is not on me, it’s on the author of the chart. Posting bad science that fails to prove X does not put the buden on me to prove “not X”, all I have to do is show why it was bad science (lack of normalization), the onus is on the author .”
You made a positive claim about the likely cause of the chart’s results that you have only asserted, not demonstrated. The onus would seem to be on you to prove your claim.
> Citation?
You need a citation to tell you that Chile is a different culture than the USA? What?
> It’s fun to make things up.
I mean some things seem obvious to me. So are you arguing I'm wrong and Chile people have lifestyles that are as healthy as people in the USA? I mean I think thats obvious but atleast this seems like a reasonable thing to want to object to. I would have no problem exploring the data here.
> You made a positive claim about the likely cause of the chart’s results that you have only asserted, not demonstrated. The onus would seem to be on you to prove your claim.
Doesnt work that way buddy. When a chart explicitly abandons known best practices, and therefore would fail a peer-review, it is not on the peer reviewers to prove why a possible/likely scenario is true or not. The fact that a reasonable scenario is not normalized is itself a failure of the original assertation. It is the job of a person posting data to show they reasonably accounted for counter-explanations. It is not on me to prove something they didnt account for is true or not.
To put it another way, this is bad science even if after normalization they are still proven to be right. Bad science is bad science regardless of if it happens to be correct or not in the end.
@freemo @GossiTheDog @juergen_hubert @malwaretech
> “You need a citation to tell you that Chile is a different culture than the USA? What?”
You would need a citation to demonstrate that the Chilean public has a substantively different lifestyle from the American public that could causally generate such a lower life expectancy in the US, rather than just making it up.
> “I mean some things seem obvious to me. So are you arguing I’m wrong and Chile people have lifestyles that are as healthy as people in the USA? I mean I think thats obvious but atleast this seems like a reasonable thing to want to object to. I would have no problem exploring the data here.”
Assuming something as self-evidently true without evidence isn’t how science is done, buddy.
> “Doesnt work that way buddy. When a chart explicitly abandons known best practices, and therefore would fail a peer-review, it is not on the peer reviewers to prove why a possible/likely scenario is true or not. The fact that a reasonable scenario is not normalized is itself a failure of the original assertation. It is the job of a person posting data to show they reasonably accounted for counter-explanations. It is not on me to prove something they didnt account for is true or not.”
I didn’t ask you about the chart, I asked you to defend your own claim, which you evidently can’t or won’t do, because the neoliberal explanation just *fees* right to you.
> You would need a citation to demonstrate that the Chilean public has a substantively different lifestyle from the American public that could causally generate such a lower life expectancy in the US, rather than just making it up.
Again no.. The burden of proof is on the author to ensure they have accounted for these possible confounding variables, pointing out they did not account for them does not mean I have to prove they would change the results, only showing that the original chart is bad-science and doesnt do any sense of normalization for confounding (a requirement to pass peer-review in data science).
> Assuming something as self-evidently true without evidence isn’t how science is done, buddy.
No it isnt, but it also isnt a claim to science. It is showing that something which is self-evident wasnt accounted for by the person doing science, they not only assumed it wasnt true by not normalizing for it, it shows they didnt account for things which are highly reasonable to speculate could be an factor.
You are right, making those assumptions isnt science, which is exactly why the chart is bad science, it makes an assumption on that, and the onus is on the author not me.
> I didn’t ask you about the chart, I asked you to defend your own claim, which you evidently can’t or won’t do, because the neoliberal explanation just *fees* right to you.
And I answered you, my claim is not meant to say "this is true" it is meant to show a reasonable explanation for the data that was not accounted for and thus showing bad science. My claim being true or not is not what makes it bad science, the fact my claim wasnt accounted for does.
While yes, my explanation does seem to be a reasonable intepritation of the data ive seen throughout my life it is not an assertion of scientific fact, it is an assertion as to why this chart is not scientific fact, and int hat regard it is accurate.
the fact that your sitting here arguing with a published professional research scientist about what is good science and not and you are defneding obvbious bad science tooth and nail says a lot about who is making assumptions here.
@GossiTheDog @juergen_hubert @freemo @malwaretech
> “Again no.. The burden of proof is on the author to ensure they have accounted for these possible confounding variables, pointing out they did not account for them does not mean I have to prove they would change the results, only showing that the original chart is bad-science and doesnt do any sense of normalization for confounding (a requirement to pass peer-review in data science).”
I’m not asking about the chart, I’m asking about your claim that lower US life expectancy despite higher healthcare spending is likely the product of allegedly different lifestyle choices. That was your claim, above.
> “No it isnt, but it also isnt a claim to science. It is showing that something which is self-evident wasnt accounted for by the person doing science, they not only assumed it wasnt true by not normalizing for it, it shows they didnt account for things which are highly reasonable to speculate could be an factor.”
While Max Roser doesn’t explicitly explain his methodology behind the chart—I don’t know that he didn’t normalize the data—he shares your neoliberal faith in blaming systemic effects on individual lifestyle choices.
> “You are right, making those assumptions isnt science, which is exactly why the chart is bad science, it makes an assumption on that, and the onus is on the author not me.”
I asked you to explain your assertion and it seems that it’s based on unfounded assumptions.
> “And I answered you, my claim is not meant to say “this is true” it is meant to show a reasonable explanation for the data that was not accounted for and thus showing bad science. My claim being true or not is not what makes it bad science, the fact my claim wasnt accounted for does.”
Again, you made a positive and probabilistic assertion about a causal relationship between the chart’s results and lifestyle that you have consistently resisted trying to demonstrate.
> “While yes, my explanation does seem to be a reasonable intepritation of the data ive seen throughout my life it is not an assertion of scientific fact, it is an assertion as to why this chart is not scientific fact, and int hat regard it is accurate.”
That’s not at all what you said.
> “the fact that your sitting here arguing with a published professional research scientist about what is good science and not and you are defneding obvbious bad science tooth and nail says a lot about who is making assumptions here.”
Research science is not assuming data and then assigning those assumptions a causal role.
> I’m not asking about the chart, I’m asking about your claim that lower US life expectancy despite higher healthcare spending is likely the product of allegedly different lifestyle choices. That was your claim, above.
There are multiple claims I made, two of relevance here.
1) That the chart would be rejected as bad and misleading science due to lack of normalization.
2) My **opinion** as to what the likely interpritation would be if the OP had done correct science.
You are asking about #2, how I formed my opinion, and then think your being smart by holding it to scientific rigor. The part that is my opinion need not hold to scientific rigor, that the nature of opinions. But should it be disproven by scientific rigor then I should, of course, incorperate that science into forming my opinion, and if the evidence is strong a reasonable person should change their opinion to match it.
As I said I am happy to explore the science that would form my opinion, but its a tangent that has no value to point #1 which is the only important point I made in this thread
As stated regardless of if my opinion is correct I have suffiuciently shown #1 and that wouldnt change even if my opinion in #2 is wrong. So while I know you'd like to go into the weeds and argue #2 that has no value to the point being made here, but happy to explore it if thats where you want to go.
> While Max Roser doesn’t explicitly explain his methodology behind the chart—I don’t know that he didn’t normalize the data—he shares your neoliberal faith in blaming systemic effects on individual lifestyle choices.
We do know he didnt normalize the data, this is evident by how the data is labeled. If it were normalized this would be reflected in the chart.
> I asked you to explain your assertion and it seems that it’s based on unfounded assumptions.
I didnt tell you what the data was behind my opinion. Only that the overwhelming data seemed obvious and hard to deny. So you can argue i didnt provide data, but you drawing the conclusion its an assumption is clearly contrary to what I explicitly stated. Something being obvious is not the same as an assumption, lack of scientific rigor is also not the same as an assumption. At best you can say its an opinion that is not sufficiently proven in this conversation, that again is not the same as an assumption
> Again, you made a positive and probabilistic assertion about a causal relationship between the chart’s results and lifestyle that you have consistently resisted trying to demonstrate.
See my above, I expressed my opinion which was secondary and really of no real importance to the porimary point of bad-science being made. Yes I refused to prove that because as I have stated many times it is neither relevant to my point to prove it, nor neccesary for one to prove their opinions to others, people can and do have opinions that do not have all the elements of scientific rigor as previously explained, that does not imply it isnt a fact based or evidence based opinion however, we simply didnt waste time going into the facts as they have no relevance to my point.
Yes it wa hand waiving because as I said countless times proving my opinion to others has no relevance to the point i made int he threads. So i need not waste the time to go down an irrelevant tangent to the discussion.
As I said we can go actually intot he data and i dont mind doing that in a seperate thread where that is the topic discussed. But is is a distraction from my comment and point so would be a wastge to go over here in this thread.
@juergen_hubert @malwaretech @GossiTheDog @freemo
You seem perfectly happy wasting everyone’s time so I’m not sure why it would only bother you when you’re asked to actually defend your tiresome assertion.
Seriously you get called out for wasting everyones time by going down a tangent not related to what is being discussed and try and deflect and tell me **im** the one wasting time... thats cute.
As i said im happy to defend my opinion, but since its unrelated to the thread here and not the point i made we simply can do so in a seperate thread. Start a post and tag me and ill be happy to discuss it there and actually go through the data behind my opinion if thats really what you want.
Just dont waste my time and everyone elses by arguing something here that isnt relevant to what is being discussed.
@juergen_hubert @malwaretech @freemo @GossiTheDog
“Only that the overwhelming data seemed obvious and hard to deny.”
Hand waving.