3 ms·
That's a deeply reductionist way of looking at it. > At the same time, the researchers are quick to point out that the findings cannot immediately be reduced t
by Domenic_S 8y ago
That's a deeply reductionist way of looking at it.
> At the same time, the researchers are quick to point out that the findings cannot immediately be reduced to simple cause-and-effect explanations. For instance, as social scientists have long observed, it is very hard to say whether having wealth leads to better health — or if health, on aggregate, is a prerequisite for accumulating wealth. Most likely, the two interact in complex ways, something the study cannot resolve.
- https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap...
In other words, this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dv_dt 8y agoIf you parse that question carefully, it is not asking if existing wealth can help confer health. The question is if health is needed to accumulate (more) wealth. Word in () added. And that seems like a silly question - of course people are going to have more difficulty accumulating wealth with sufficiently bad health.. I think there is a definite policy question of how exactly is it that wealth helps grant better health, and can we effectively increase our society's health by knowing in more detail... but to me the fundamental link doesn't have much more to prove with that data.