A major problem with the healthcare system is that patients lie to their doctor.
Most patients will even privately admit that they lied when they were informing their doctors about their issues. Their reasons for doing this often aren't very good:
Patients want to avoid getting lectured, they don't want their doctor to call them fat or tell them their snacking habits are unhealthy. They're afraid the doctor will judge them or think they're stupid or immoral, and they don't want the doctor to tell their family.
But because people want to preserve their privacy even in the private setting of a doctor's office, they end up making doctors' jobs harder.
They make it harder to diagnose conditions and to prescribe the right drugs.
People insist they can't have STDs because they don't want the doctor to know they're having sex.
People don't disclose drug habits.
People lie about exposures they might've had at home because they don't want to appear disheveled and poor.
Whatever the reasons, it's bad!
But doctors have a role to play here. Even offering a simple reassurance might go a long way to getting a patient to fess up to the real causes of their problems.
I used to like this chart, but now I think it's too misleading and we should leave it behind in 2024.
🧵
The key issue is how household size is adjusted for.
In the OP image, they divide by the square root of household size. This is problematic because it means Gen Z incomes are being inflated to the extent they live with their parents.
Generally, when I hear that the younger generations are more successful, what I think is that they're more successful in the stereotypical ways:
They've got relatively better jobs, relatively bigger homes, relatively faster cars and all that.
I was reminded of this yesterday when looking into national IQ estimates.
The "pseudo-analysis" style of critique is to just spit out tons of possible problems, to nitpick, and then to assume that means a whole enterprise is rotten without even checking if the critique holds.
The people who engage in this style of critique (example below) don't care for scientific reasoning about these topics.
They want purity by their arbitrary and inconsistent standards, not correctness, not a 'best effort' to get make progress on finding answers.
So they misrepresent what people do and say; they attack strawmen; they claim people are wrong based on reasons that don't affect actually make them wrong, but they never check; they fail to understand the basics of the things they're contesting, but they act confident; etc.
This post got 50,000 likes and it never even pointed out the actual issue with the calculations, it just took issue with framing and it expressed that Kareem is too inept to find sources.
But what's new?
Kareem debunking thread below
Kareem says this is a "textbook example of how to lie with statistics."
It really isn't, but let's see what he bases this on.
The first thing he says -- his "main criticism" -- is that the data isn't provided. But for Kareem, this is completely meaningless.
We know this is meaningless, because even when all the data is presented, Kareem still doesn't do anything with it, understand it, open it, manipulate it, or anything.
He says "where's the data?" and when he gets it, he just blocks you.
Napoleon was the best-performing general in European history, and it's not even close.
His Wins Above Replacement (WAR) simply dwarfed everyone else, including Caesar.
You know who underperformed?
Robert E. Lee!
Gray reputation, poor realized performance. He faced a lot of disadvantages, but it's clear he also made a lot of bad choices, like ordering Picketts' Charge.
The Home Office rape gang report cited several studies that reported the ethnicities of rape gang members and it concluded that there wasn't reliable evidence of Asian overrepresentation.
But every study providing data showed there definitely was🧵
Have you noticed that people seem younger at the same ages? 40 is the new 30, 30 is the new 25, and so on?
There's something to it. People nowadays are aging more gracefully, and what makes this more interesting is that it's a global phenomenon.
Let's talk five "capacities"🧵
Psychological capacity is indexed by self-reports: How do you feel, how are you sleeping, etc.
Locomotor capacity is indexed by measured walking speeds, the classic chair stand test, etc.
Vitality capacity is indexed by grip strength, forced expiratory volumes, and hemoglobin A
In a large British longitudinal study of people born from the 1920s through the 1950s and measured again at various ages, what we see in terms of these measures is that people are clocking in higher, and they're aging more gracefully.