Comments on: Choose or Lose http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: GilM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-364 GilM Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-364 Mortally Frightening Clowns would make a great band name. Mortally Frightening Clowns would make a great band name.

]]> By: Marie http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-363 Marie Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:51:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-363 Well, you do have a reputation to protect as a paragon of analytical rigor applied to minutia! Well, you do have a reputation to protect as a paragon of analytical rigor applied to minutia!

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-362 Will Wilkinson Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:43:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-362 Yes, we must always employ the utmost empirical rigor while running through a series of satirical misinterpretations of a perfectly straighforward albeit retarded slogan! Yes, we must always employ the utmost empirical rigor while running through a series of satirical misinterpretations of a perfectly straighforward albeit retarded slogan!

]]> By: Anonymous http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-361 Anonymous Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:33:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-361 You write: 1) "So he must be saying that if you don't vote, the probability of dying will increase. 2) How about that? 3) Well, we can check the death rates among voters and non-voters from the last election. 4) My hunch is that the rate of death among voters is probably higher than among non-voters, since the elderly vote more reliably than the young, and the elderly tend to die more. 5) So what is Mr. Combs trying to say?" I took this to mean that you considered the test you suggested in sentences 3 and 4, above, adequate to rebut the Diddy Death Hypothesis articulated in sentence 1. Not that I actually mind, of course! Empirical sloppiness is one of philosophers' charming tendencies. Not everyone should be as unbearably annoying as I am hoping to become one day. You write:
1) “So he must be saying that if you don’t vote, the probability of dying will increase.
2) How about that?
3) Well, we can check the death rates among voters and non-voters from the last election.
4) My hunch is that the rate of death among voters is probably higher than among non-voters, since the elderly vote more reliably than the young, and the elderly tend to die more.
5) So what is Mr. Combs trying to say?”

I took this to mean that you considered the test you suggested in sentences 3 and 4, above, adequate to rebut the Diddy Death Hypothesis articulated in sentence 1.

Not that I actually mind, of course! Empirical sloppiness is one of philosophers’ charming tendencies. Not everyone should be as unbearably annoying as I am hoping to become one day.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-360 Will Wilkinson Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:16:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-360 It is nice. But I thought it was clear that I was saying that being a voter correlates with being old, and that being old correlates with dying and not that voting straightaway correlates with dying. It is nice. But I thought it was clear that I was saying that being a voter correlates with being old, and that being old correlates with dying and not that voting straightaway correlates with dying.

]]> By: Marie http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-359 Marie Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:11:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-359 Why Mr. Wilkinson, a simple bivariate regression is no way to determine the effect of voting on mortality rates! If your observation that voters die more often than non-voters were indeed adequate to rebut the "vote or you're more likely to die" proposition, it would imply that voting itself causes death. But we know that isn't true. Rather, a third characteristic - advanced age - is positively correllated with both voting and death. To find out whether voting reduces or increases the chances of death, we would have to generate a multivariate regression controlling for correllated characteristics such as age. Or better yet, run a random controlled experiment assigning people to voting and non-voting groups and monitoring their death rates. Isn't it nice that I'm learning things in school? Why Mr. Wilkinson, a simple bivariate regression is no way to determine the effect of voting on mortality rates! If your observation that voters die more often than non-voters were indeed adequate to rebut the “vote or you’re more likely to die” proposition, it would imply that voting itself causes death. But we know that isn’t true. Rather, a third characteristic – advanced age – is positively correllated with both voting and death.

To find out whether voting reduces or increases the chances of death, we would have to generate a multivariate regression controlling for correllated characteristics such as age. Or better yet, run a random controlled experiment assigning people to voting and non-voting groups and monitoring their death rates.

Isn’t it nice that I’m learning things in school?

]]> By: Marie http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-352 Marie Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-352 Why Mr. Wilkinson, a simple bivariate regression is no way to determine the effect of voting on mortality rates! If your observation that voters die more often than non-voters were indeed adequate to rebut the "vote or you're more likely to die" proposition, it would imply that voting itself causes death. But we know that isn't true. Rather, a third characteristic - advanced age - is positively correllated with both voting and death. To find out whether voting reduces or increases the chances of death, we would have to generate a multivariate regression controlling for correllated characteristics such as age. Or better yet, run a random controlled experiment assigning people to voting and non-voting groups and monitoring their death rates. Isn't it nice that I'm learning things in school? Why Mr. Wilkinson, a simple bivariate regression is no way to determine the effect of voting on mortality rates! If your observation that voters die more often than non-voters were indeed adequate to rebut the “vote or you’re more likely to die” proposition, it would imply that voting itself causes death. But we know that isn’t true. Rather, a third characteristic – advanced age – is positively correllated with both voting and death.

To find out whether voting reduces or increases the chances of death, we would have to generate a multivariate regression controlling for correllated characteristics such as age. Or better yet, run a random controlled experiment assigning people to voting and non-voting groups and monitoring their death rates.

Isn’t it nice that I’m learning things in school?

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-353 Will Wilkinson Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-353 It is nice. But I thought it was clear that I was saying that being a voter correlates with being old, and that being old correlates with dying and not that voting straightaway correlates with dying. It is nice. But I thought it was clear that I was saying that being a voter correlates with being old, and that being old correlates with dying and not that voting straightaway correlates with dying.

]]> By: Anonymous http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-354 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-354 You write: 1) "So he must be saying that if you don't vote, the probability of dying will increase. 2) How about that? 3) Well, we can check the death rates among voters and non-voters from the last election. 4) My hunch is that the rate of death among voters is probably higher than among non-voters, since the elderly vote more reliably than the young, and the elderly tend to die more. 5) So what is Mr. Combs trying to say?" I took this to mean that you considered the test you suggested in sentences 3 and 4, above, adequate to rebut the Diddy Death Hypothesis articulated in sentence 1. Not that I actually mind, of course! Empirical sloppiness is one of philosophers' charming tendencies. Not everyone should be as unbearably annoying as I am hoping to become one day. You write:
1) “So he must be saying that if you don’t vote, the probability of dying will increase.
2) How about that?
3) Well, we can check the death rates among voters and non-voters from the last election.
4) My hunch is that the rate of death among voters is probably higher than among non-voters, since the elderly vote more reliably than the young, and the elderly tend to die more.
5) So what is Mr. Combs trying to say?”

I took this to mean that you considered the test you suggested in sentences 3 and 4, above, adequate to rebut the Diddy Death Hypothesis articulated in sentence 1.

Not that I actually mind, of course! Empirical sloppiness is one of philosophers’ charming tendencies. Not everyone should be as unbearably annoying as I am hoping to become one day.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/07/20/choose-or-lose/#comment-355 Will Wilkinson Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=381#comment-355 Yes, we must always employ the utmost empirical rigor while running through a series of satirical misinterpretations of a perfectly straighforward albeit retarded slogan! Yes, we must always employ the utmost empirical rigor while running through a series of satirical misinterpretations of a perfectly straighforward albeit retarded slogan!

]]>