4 ms·

At the same time, I don't think anybody would have issues with claims like "smoking kills X people a year", even though it's also a relationship that isn't 100%

At the same time, I don't think anybody would have issues with claims like "smoking kills X people a year", even though it's also a relationship that isn't 100% direct. The two claims do seem qualitatively different to me, but I'm not sure why. What's the concrete difference between "overwork kills X people a year" and "smoking kills X people a year" that makes one a sound claim and the other sound like nonsense?

noahtallen 5y ago
I think smoking is a much more concrete relationship though, because you’re inhaling something which directly and physically damages your body. The tie to death is also more obvious because there aren’t other factors which could make a difference. If you smoke a lot, you’ll get lung cancer —- eating a good diet or exercising won’t stop the bad effects. Whereas with overwork, maybe if you have excellent routines like getting good sleep, exercise a lot, meditate, hydrate, etc, you’ll be able to combat the stress level. So you’re probably not quite as doomed as you might be with smoking. Like, with smoking, it is the actual thing you consume which kills you. But with overwork, it’s not that you’re working $x hours too many, but that you’re super stressed out. (Even achieving low stress levels with normal work hours can be hard!) I think phrasing it as stress makes the tie more obvious to me because high stress levels are more obviously damaging.
- spicybright 5y ago
  I disagree. You can see clear effects from prolonged stress on the body. And in both cases, people still get lung cancer without smoking, and people can still die of heart attacks without being stressed.
parsimo2010 5y ago
I think the difference may be because we've been hearing about the harms of smoking for decades now. So when we hear "smoking kills X people" we understand they don't mean that smoking is the cause of death written on the death certificate, we understand that smoking has a demonstrable causal link to a variety of reduced lung health. While most people understand that stress probably isn't good for you, we haven't had decades of ad campaigns and public health initiatives dedicated towards it. So the general public just needs time to catch up before we put stress in the same bucket as smoking, lead paint, and asbestos.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
doingmyting 5y ago
I tend to view smoking as having a bit more direct of an influence. A doctor can for instance look at a smoker's lung and see signs of damage that directly correlates to smoking. I don't know what physical signs a medical professional or anyone else for that matter, would be able to quantifiably identify in the case of overwork.
temp8964 5y ago
Actually "smoking kills X people a year" is also wrong. Yes, there is directly link between smoking and physical damage to the body. But two issues involved: 1. people usually do not instantly die after smoking. There is a long process from smoking to death. 2. people who smoke are different from people who do not smoke. There could be other contributing factors associated with people who smokes. "smoking kills X people a year" was never a scientifically accurate claim. The accurate claim should be smoking increase * chance of ##, or on average people who smoke live ## years shorter. However, there are cases where you can say smoking kills someone. For example, a woman who frequently smokes during the pregnancy gives birth to a baby born with severe life-threatening defects and the baby dies immediately after birth. In this case it could be OK to say the mother's smoking killed the baby, because: 1. There is a relatively short period of time involved. 2. There may be no other significant contributing factor to the birth defects, if we can rule out genetic factors. Otherwise, in most cases, it is not scientifically accurate to claim smoking kills X people a year. In some cases, smoking actually could save people, who would otherwise use more detrimental means to release stress or anxiety.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  What about "virus killed x amount of people last year", when the vast majority of these deaths were patients older than the median life expectancy with significant existing health problems prior to the infection? I do agree people need to be more critical of science reporting. And often science needs to do a much better job at both sciencing and explaining the results to people who aren't experienced in interpreting them.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    I think my two tests are still valid on the claim: 1. is the length of the period of those people from getting infected to death relatively short? 2. are there any other significant factors contribute to those people's death in that period? Even if deaths were patients older than the median life expectancy with significant existing health problems prior to the infection, they can still pass those two tests, so most of them were still killed by the virus.

noahtallen 5y ago

I think smoking is a much more concrete relationship though, because you’re inhaling something which directly and physically damages your body. The tie to death is also more obvious because there aren’t other factors which could make a difference. If you smoke a lot, you’ll get lung cancer —- eating a good diet or exercising won’t stop the bad effects. Whereas with overwork, maybe if you have excellent routines like getting good sleep, exercise a lot, meditate, hydrate, etc, you’ll be able to combat the stress level. So you’re probably not quite as doomed as you might be with smoking. Like, with smoking, it is the actual thing you consume which kills you. But with overwork, it’s not that you’re working $x hours too many, but that you’re super stressed out. (Even achieving low stress levels with normal work hours can be hard!) I think phrasing it as stress makes the tie more obvious to me because high stress levels are more obviously damaging.

spicybright 5y ago
I disagree. You can see clear effects from prolonged stress on the body. And in both cases, people still get lung cancer without smoking, and people can still die of heart attacks without being stressed.

parsimo2010 5y ago

I think the difference may be because we've been hearing about the harms of smoking for decades now. So when we hear "smoking kills X people" we understand they don't mean that smoking is the cause of death written on the death certificate, we understand that smoking has a demonstrable causal link to a variety of reduced lung health. While most people understand that stress probably isn't good for you, we haven't had decades of ad campaigns and public health initiatives dedicated towards it. So the general public just needs time to catch up before we put stress in the same bucket as smoking, lead paint, and asbestos.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

doingmyting 5y ago

I tend to view smoking as having a bit more direct of an influence. A doctor can for instance look at a smoker's lung and see signs of damage that directly correlates to smoking. I don't know what physical signs a medical professional or anyone else for that matter, would be able to quantifiably identify in the case of overwork.

temp8964 5y ago

Actually "smoking kills X people a year" is also wrong. Yes, there is directly link between smoking and physical damage to the body. But two issues involved: 1. people usually do not instantly die after smoking. There is a long process from smoking to death. 2. people who smoke are different from people who do not smoke. There could be other contributing factors associated with people who smokes. "smoking kills X people a year" was never a scientifically accurate claim. The accurate claim should be smoking increase * chance of ##, or on average people who smoke live ## years shorter. However, there are cases where you can say smoking kills someone. For example, a woman who frequently smokes during the pregnancy gives birth to a baby born with severe life-threatening defects and the baby dies immediately after birth. In this case it could be OK to say the mother's smoking killed the baby, because: 1. There is a relatively short period of time involved. 2. There may be no other significant contributing factor to the birth defects, if we can rule out genetic factors. Otherwise, in most cases, it is not scientifically accurate to claim smoking kills X people a year. In some cases, smoking actually could save people, who would otherwise use more detrimental means to release stress or anxiety.

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
What about "virus killed x amount of people last year", when the vast majority of these deaths were patients older than the median life expectancy with significant existing health problems prior to the infection? I do agree people need to be more critical of science reporting. And often science needs to do a much better job at both sciencing and explaining the results to people who aren't experienced in interpreting them.
- temp8964 5y ago
  I think my two tests are still valid on the claim: 1. is the length of the period of those people from getting infected to death relatively short? 2. are there any other significant factors contribute to those people's death in that period? Even if deaths were patients older than the median life expectancy with significant existing health problems prior to the infection, they can still pass those two tests, so most of them were still killed by the virus.