Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (1745)	12/11/2016 6:11:56 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By Katelew one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361655

Their's is a very sophisticated science. Not saying it isn't. I'm saying that it's not unusual for practitioners supposedly trained in science to not know how to interpret data. Those laymen who follow along behind the scientists are even worse. That two things are associated does not mean that one of them caused the other. When they think so, how do they decide whether A caused B or B caused A? Expectation bias every time, and they don't know they're doing it. How many reports treat "statisticaly significant" as meaning that the thing is significant in that it matters? How many claim in scare headines that X doubles your risk of cancer when doubling means relative risk whereas the actual risk is now one in a million rather than one in two million and who cares? Gotta be careful with this stuff. The basic thesis is that social ills, like crime and teen pregnancy, that have long been associated with poverty, actually have a stronger correlation with income inequality. businessinsider.com SI is going to shorten that link so you won't see that the article speaks to association where the title (....com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11) reads "effects of," not "associated with." Now, please note that I have not blown off income inequality. If you recall my original comment, it was not hostile to the subject. I just framed it differently. I don't see income inequality as inherently a problem. Not sure I see it as a problem at all but rather rather a symptom of the real problem. It is not constructive long term to mitigate [a] symptom while leaving the underlying problem to fester. Income inequality is one of those fashionable issue catch-alls like "corporate greed," which was recently mentioned here, that are designed to focus political outrage. Makes a nice slogan; not very useful. These are complex subjects not amenable to improvement without teasing out the threads that can be usefully addressed. The knee jerk solution to would be to take money from the haves and just give it to the have-nots until the gap is small. That would fix the problem...not. Because you can't fix a slogan.