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.

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.

Many literal scientists assume the correlations they find are causative without much thought. Definitely a pervasive problem the assumption of correlations as causations.

The real reason though, those scientist trained hacks are signing on to what they are paid to, to design studies to work backwards from poisoning the population is actually totally safe.

But yes.

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 other month in our field some random team published a paper where they surveyed people sick with a chronic illness and people who had recovered from that illness. They found the recovered people had better mental health than those who were ill.

The authors in all their wisdom decided that means mental health causes the illness. It apparently didn’t cross their mind that being chronically ill is not fun so you have worse mental health and being recovered is comparatively great so you have better mental health.

Now some right wing chuds are citing this silly study to try and paint the illness as fake.

“Guys! It’s the scientists who are bad!” said the smartest person in the room

A point which he arrived at through correlation, without citing any causation.

Curious.

No pockets, you say?

Magical domesticated equine!

The amount of shit science being published today is appalling. It's always been a significant issue, but it has gotten worse with time. I have read articles published in the top journals who's methodology should have made a 1st year graduate student cringe. I have no idea how they made it past peer review and were published.

saddlebags

Gtfo of here, we should all know trade groups hire agencies to construct studies from it's cool to reach that conclustion.

You are either ignorant and given to trolling people you think (often incorrectly,) have made some offense, or a fucking moron.

Now piss off.

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.

horse people love to tell you how they have no money because of their horses though

Tweed on a steed!

What about a horse with no name?

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.

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.

How does wine taste? I really wanna taste wine before I die.

Touche

they will pay for it. every single person who mistakes causation and correlation will die!

Your argument may be better received with less hostility. People are going to criticise your ideas throughout life, however this reaction could be seen as a distraction to your focus on the subject. Everyone is at dismay at a topic, and many topics have the capability to become heated, yet you will be amongst greater levels of respectability for future interactions if you consider refraining from attacks today (even if you feel as though this is being done to you).
Just trying to help, not scold. There's always a better way to get your point across without making people dislike your comments, is what I'm essentially trying to get at.

I had to sell all my free time for some ultra-processed foods

Tastes a lot like grapes that have gone off, actually. So just imagine that. Maybe you'll live longer.

First of all, I don't give a fuck how I'm received, until I am satisfied my comment is in the common good. And I stand by this comment entirely. I am proud of my preceding comment, and if you don't like it, I don't care. Not one little bit. Other than caring enough to argue a bit obviously.

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

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

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.

Idk... a lot of gen Z people I know just don't drink at all

lol fair enough, big man.

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.

Well I don't wanna live longer. I wanna enjoy everything in this life before I die.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Based

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.

The crazy thing about wine is that it tastes wiiiiiiiiiiildly different based on the grape and process.

I really agree. The decline in methodology and proper hedging (not overstating) is really appalling. It feels like science publishing has become about marketing your paper not trying to uncover the “truth”…

Headlines need to not mislead, yes. But people also need to read beyond headlines.

I suppose thats kind of what I meant. For sure there are actual differences between a $30 bottle and an $80 bottle, but after $30 it is mostly a game of massively diminishing returns. A $60 bottle of wine is nowhere near as good of a value as two $30 bottles of wine. A $300 bottle is sure as shit nowhere near good enough to be better than the value of 10 $30 bottles

Other than Cliqout, Ive never had a bottle of wine worth over $30 that I would ever pay for myself. Im a big fan of Saldo, which doesnt have hardly any label on it. I figured it would be good wine since its definitely not selling itself with a sexy label lol

It varies dramatically for different types of wine, even within the broad categories (red, white, rosé, etc.). Some wines are grapier and will be reminiscent of juice you've had. Others are further away from that. Invariably they will taste different if you've never had wine before, even moreso if you've not had alcohol.

If you are interested in wine for the experience, I'd recommend situations where it's well-paired with food. The best wine I've ever drank has been with good food that complemented it.

Kind of like all the sugar substitute correlation “studies” that keep saying sugar substitutes cause the same diseases that being obese cause. Hmmm, I wonder who typically consumes sugar substitutes…

they used to teach that in schools. probably not anymore.

No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe?

I'm lucky to live in France so there's plenty of affordable and good local wine but I'll definitely keep an eye on the import section for that one. Heard good things about Californian wines. So I was already curious but never actually tried any.