Headlines need to not mislead, yes. But people also need to read beyond headlines.
In the UK where everyone has decent basic health care on average you live 2 years shorter if you own a horse. It's worse than riding a motorcycle (1 year shorter). It turns out that owning a big animal that will kick you if you look at it funny or throw you off if it gets startled by a packet of crisps in the road isn't that great for your health.
People who live longer:
People who drink a glass of wine every night.
People who buy organic and cook whole foods at home.
People who spend 30+ minutes a day being activr/at the gym.
People who get 9+ hours of sleep every night.
People who have less chronic stress.
People who get regular checkups/screenings at the doctor.
So... rich people that have the time and can afford to do all of those things or have them done for them.
The glass of wine is likely due to a selection bias in Tea Total people. Most people who are completely sober, are so either because they are recovering alcoholics, or have other health issues.
Most people who are healthy and have no prior alcoholism issues drink at least occasionaly, which introduces a selection bias favouring people with health issues as strict non drinkers, which causes not drinking at all to be correlated with worse health than drinking occasionally.
Idk... a lot of gen Z people I know just don't drink at all
OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn't control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn't drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day.
Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they're is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume.
So it's got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the "1-2 drinks is healthy" thing.
Yeah but these (usually flawed) studies that have wormed their way into the public consciousness were done long before gen z was drinking age. From up-to-date information it's pretty clear that any amount of any kind of alcohol is quite bad for you. Obviously increasing with quantity.
How does wine taste? I really wanna taste wine before I die.
The crazy thing about wine is that it tastes wiiiiiiiiiiildly different based on the grape and process.
A good bottle of wine is only in the $20-$30 range. IMO, every wine I have ever had that costs more than $30 is not any better than wine that is $30. Ive tried quite a bit of different stuff up to $75-$300 bottles that I got for free. None of it was worth more than a $30 bottles, at least to my palette. The one exception probably being Veuve Cliquot champagne, which is really good but costs like $50.
There is a pretty big difference between a $7 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine though. Honestly wine is kind of an acquired taste, and there are a lot of varieties. If you want something good but also cheap then you cant go wrong with a $10 bottle of sweet table wine. Any other kind of wine its worth it to spend for something in the $20-$30 price range if you want it to be decent
Depends on the wine. I wanted to see for myself so I bought 2 bottles from the same producer. Same type of wine and stuff as well. One bottle was 25-ish€ and the other was 80-ish. I could instantly tell which the more expensive wine was. Then I asked my wife to taste without telling her which is which. She could also instantly tell. Was it worth the price? Fuck no. I usually buy in the 10-15 range from a guy that I trust since supermarket stuff is hit and miss and I like trying new ones, not just buying the same one every time.
I am not American and where I live, wine is illegal (exceptions are there and loopholes too) so it is difficult for me to drink wine in my community and country.
I had a nepo coworker gloat about spilling $500/bottle champagne in NYC for his birthday party. I said, “why aren’t you drinking that?” Sick.
Tastes a lot like grapes that have gone off, actually. So just imagine that. Maybe you'll live longer.
Well I don't wanna live longer. I wanna enjoy everything in this life before I die.
Based
i grew up poor and did most of those things, except from the organic whole foods stuff, which didn't even exist where i lived.
you don't have to be rich rich, you just have to have free time and good habits. and lots of poor people have lots of free time and very bad habits.
There are different levels of poverty that vary drastically in quality of life, and are highly dependent on what region you live in.
Being poor basically anywhere in Europe is a lot easier than being poor in America. Being poor in a state like California or New York is going to be easier than being poor in Oklahoma or Alabama.
Different regions have different local governments that have a huge impact on the social safety network afforded to the working poor and the disabled.
In my experience, I haven't known very many poor people who weren't disabled that had a lot of extra free time on their hands. Good habits are hard to keep when you work two to three jobs 6-7 days a week to make a wage that barely pays the bills.
I had to sell all my free time for some ultra-processed foods
Jr researchers are using AI to comb through cancer research datanases and every time they come back with data linking racial minority to worse outcomes or faster tumor progression, and proposals to review genetic differences.
Never does it link that non rich people don't go to a doctor unless it's very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can't afford the better personalized treatments.
The entire world of dog cancer research has recently collapsed not because there aren't researchers invested in the work or that there aren't clinical trials available, it's that dog owners can't afford to even travel to clinical sites for treatment.
It's heartbreaking
And are getting exercise, eating healthy, etc.
You don’t typically have a horse without money.
Typically all horses have no money. What would a horse even do with it anyway. And they don't even have pockets to put in it.
No pockets, you say?
Tweed on a steed!
saddlebags
Touche
What about a horse with no name?
horse people love to tell you how they have no money because of their horses though
My wife's family would be the atypical version. Income wise they were below the poverty limit, but because they farmed a quarter section in N. Alberta they had lots of horses.
Magical domesticated equine!
Just remember, you’ll always be third to a horse girl after her daddy’s money and her horse.
Everyone that isn't a tool already realizes the differences between causation and correlation.
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Yeah, that's the thing.
There are pockets of people who are clued in and take the time / have the time to process what they read/see & hear. Those people seem to be fewer and harder to find.
I don't think people are generally just plain dumb (I know unpopular opinion), but I think a good majority of us are in sensory and informational overload and human understanding of the world has likely never been so complex nor moved so quickly.
This is all happening during a modern renaissance period for malicious misrepresentation (i.e. convincing lies). And even if people are too "dumb" to tell truth from lies, they do recognize that the lies are coming in rapid fire and from every direction. Easier just to tune out and not think too much about all that, otherwise it's depressing.
Don't forget that older folks are aging into cognitive issues, younger people have only known this as their reality, poor people are struggling to make ends meet with no time to stop and think, and so many of the ones who've "made it" are doing their best to keep it all conveniently compartmentalized away and out of sight.
So, yes, sometimes you do have to be direct and spell otherwise obvious things out for people. The struggle is real.
This is a case where it's obvious there's no direct causation, but so often it's not this clear, and even the really smart people sometimes mess that part up -- intentionally or otherwise.
Many literal scientists assume the correlations they find are causative without much thought. Definitely a pervasive problem the assumption of correlations as causations.
they will pay for it. every single person who mistakes causation and correlation will die!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
