An interesting coincidence

Apparently, people who drink diet soda are more likely to suffer strokes or cardiac events than those who don't drink diet soda, but researchers stress that this does not prove a correlation between diet soda and heart attacks/strokes, it merely suggests poor lifestyle choices of those who partake. Neat. Applying this logic to any other study, for example studies on female social status and smoking (the study supposedly finds a correlation between the amount of cigarettes smoked by women and their ranking on a social ladder), leads one to believe it's not smoking that makes the women cool, it's simply what's expected of cool women. Face it, not everyone who's cool smokes something, and not everyone who smokes is cool. It's just another coincidence that leads experts to a false conclusion via a study. Studies are for chumps.

 

Huh, reminds me of this.

There's always exception on the rule (e.g. "humans are born with two arms"). Why does this interest us? Because if we can put everything in statistics and such, we are better capable to deal with our daily lives. But still, to researchers everywhere I say this: "Who gives a flying toss?"[/url]

 

I have to admit. I consume sugary drinks and snacks by loads. Yet I never get fat, despite my mostly sitting lifestyle. I praise my metabolism.

Also, I am not sure just how true this is, but my mom, who is an experienced doctor, claims that consumption of drinks with artificial sweeteners actually increases risks of developing diabetes. Not sure how this works, but it's got something to do with excessive production of unnecessary insulin, which never gets used up.

Don't quote me on that, though.

 

Evil deed for the day: check.

 

I can actually see that happening, but I'm not sure why. You'd think overproduction of insulin would cause hypoglycemia, which is pretty much the opposite of diabetes. However, I can see how once the body discovers that there's no real carbohydrate in the digestive system that the insulin would be broken down some how. My diabetes was caused by an unknown virus that screwed with my immune system, causing it to go berserk on my pancreas. I'm the first in my family to have diabetes, and it won't be passed on to my children because I wasn't born with it. Essentially I am the alpha and omega of diabetes in my family.

 

I would think that the fact that cigarettes are an expensive luxury item would also contribute to the relationship.

My brief classes in statistics/understanding medical studies showed me that you really have to look at those studies very carefully. It's easy to lean studies to show what you want and how you want it, or to miss an important fact or approach that totally invalidates your conclusion.

 

I've always enjoyed Penn and Teller's stuff, that was an interesting link, thanks. I agree that for the most part, polling is useless information. Polling and scientific studies are two sides of the same coin however, in that they both use statistics.

Despite the slight bias in that link, stats "fudging" is a terrible tool used by both sides of anything. The really sad part is the only reason it works is because people are, for the most part, morons. Myself included as well, I've been swayed by fancy presentations only to later be sitting at home going "WTF."

 

But what are statistics, really? You can show just about anything with the right statistic, so couldn't the argument be made that statistics are no more than tailor made numerological disputes? For example, black people are about 15% of the population of America, but are 45% of the population in prisons, so according to the statistics, black people are more likely to be imprisoned than most other races. I chose the higher route, saying "imprisoned" rather than "commit crimes." Why? because there's no way to really prove that one race is more likely to commit crimes than another. I think it's a problem with the system, some sort of racial bias that puts darker people in jail.

 

I think Cavemen are cool, too, but I don't wanna be one.