> We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor? That’s because we can then explor

> We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor? That’s because we can then explore if it’s causal or not. Current best research suggests it is, at least in the USA[1] [1]: Lleras-Muney Adriana. The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies. 2005;72(1):189–221.Kawachi Ichiro, et al. Money, Schooling, and Health: Mechanisms and Causal Evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;(1186):56–68 > Straw man. Sorry: how exactly have I misstated your point? You’ve got a controversial opinion, and an aggressive way of presenting it (fake news). You’re giving it even though it’s not the mainstream opinion, and you’re doing it without reference or attribution. If you actually think I’m not giving you a fair shot, please explain. My understanding is: You think that since money and lifespan are related, and education and money are related, that IFF lifespan and education are linked it must be through money? If you've actually got a different point, then you haven’t yet made it clear to me. If you can manage that, I’ll try to address it, but this one has been addressed.