« Ending child poverty | Main | Ending the arms races »

December 03, 2007

Comments

dearieme

If people really did internalise the truth that correlation need not imply cause, there wouldn't be much left for "social scientists" to whinge about, would there?

john b

If people read the linked papers before moaning about them, they'd find that their criticisms were nonsensical (the piece in question follows *specific groups of people over time through job loss*, rather than taking 'as #y rises so #x rises').

dearieme

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy too.

Marcin Tustin

Perhaps a citizens' basic income would reduce wage volatility?

Matt Munro

I'm not sure that you've disproved the "myth" that class inequalities (and consequent differences in health) are due to IQ. Stupid people earn less than clever people and have poorer health. The correlation could be
low iq = crap job, and crap job = poor wages and poor wages = poor health. Or it could be unconnected, for example
crap job + lottery win (still) = poor health. In other words there may still be a link between health and IQ, even if income is unaffected by IQ.
Poorer people are more likely to smoke, binge drink, eat unhealthy food and not exercise. The question is do they adopt healthier habits if they have incomes which are comparable with their cleverer cohorts, even without the their IQ ?
What this study shows (if anything) is that if intelligent people are made poor, even temporarily, it affects their health. In effect they get a sudden dose of poverty, the stress of which is hazardous to health, whereas poor people have that dose of poverty, and that stress, pretty much all of their lives. You could argue that being unused to poverty, and not expecting it, makes the unexpectedly poor less able to deal with it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad