{"id":792,"date":"2009-07-28T14:27:39","date_gmt":"2009-07-28T14:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2009\/07\/28\/bill-oreilly-on-life-expectancy-dumbest-man-on-earth\/"},"modified":"2009-07-28T14:27:39","modified_gmt":"2009-07-28T14:27:39","slug":"bill-oreilly-on-life-expectancy-dumbest-man-on-earth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2009\/07\/28\/bill-oreilly-on-life-expectancy-dumbest-man-on-earth\/","title":{"rendered":"Bill O&#039;Reilly on Life Expectancy: Dumbest Man on Earth?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> An alert reader just sent me, via &#8220;Media Matters&#8221;, the single dumbest real-life<br \/>\nvideo clip that I have ever seen. In case you&#8217;ve been living under a rock, Bill O&#8217;Reilly is<br \/>\na conservative radio and TV talk-show host. He&#8217;s known for doing a lot of really obnoxious<br \/>\nthings, ranging from sexually harassing at least one female employee, to sending some of<br \/>\nhis employees to stalk people who he doesn&#8217;t like, to shutting off the microphones of<br \/>\nguests on his show if he&#8217;s losing an argument. In short, he&#8217;s a loudmouthed asshole who<br \/>\ngets off on bullying people.<\/p>\n<p> But that&#8217;s just background. As a conservative commentator, he&#8217;s been going off on<br \/>\nthe evils of Obama&#8217;s supposedly socialist healthcare reform. That&#8217;s frequently<br \/>\ntaken the form of talking about how horrible medical care is under Canada&#8217;s<br \/>\nsocialized health system. One of his viewers wrote in to him about this. And<br \/>\nthe insanity follows.<\/p>\n<p> The question came from a viewer named Peter from Victoria, BC, who asked: &#8220;Has anyone noticed<br \/>\nthat life expectancy in Canada under our health system is higher than the USA?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p> Bill&#8217;s response:&#8221; Well, that&#8217;s to be expected Peter, because we have 10 times<br \/>\nas many people as you do. That translates to 10 times as many accidents,<br \/>\ncrimes, down the line.&#8221; Delivered, of course, in BillO&#8217;s trademark patronizing<br \/>\nstyle.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p> You know, you can, intelligently, make arguments against the Canadian<br \/>\nhealth system. For example, in many parts of Canada, there are serious<br \/>\nproblems due to a shortage of medical professionals &#8211; Doctors, nurses, even<br \/>\npharmacists are in short supply.  You <em>could<\/em> make the argument that<br \/>\nthat&#8217;s caused by the Canadian health system, because by eliminating the<br \/>\nprofit motive, there&#8217;s no motivation for a newly minted professional to<br \/>\nset up an office in the middle of nowhere. That&#8217;s a reasonable argument.<\/p>\n<p> But when it comes the stuff spewing from the pie-holes of people like<br \/>\nBillO, we don&#8217;t hear the intelligent arguments. Instead, we hear idiocy<br \/>\nlike this mind-killing bullshit. I&#8217;ve really got to wonder whether he&#8217;s<br \/>\ndumb enough to actually believe that that makes sense. I&#8217;ve always thought<br \/>\nthat he was evil, rather than dumb. But watching this, I&#8217;ve really got to<br \/>\nwonder &#8211; who does he think he&#8217;s fooling? Does he really think so little<br \/>\nof his viewers? Or does he actually believe that this argument makes sense?<\/p>\n<p> Unfortunately, I think he probably does actually believe this.<br \/>\nBased on other things I&#8217;ve heard him say, I think<br \/>\nthat while he&#8217;s not actually stupid, he is incredibly, willfully ignorant, and<br \/>\nabsolutely determined to stay that way. I think that he doesn&#8217;t actually<br \/>\nunderstand what &#8220;life expectancy&#8221; means, and given his usual &#8220;If I don&#8217;t<br \/>\nknow it, it&#8217;s not worth knowing&#8221; attitude, actually looking at a definition<br \/>\nto see if it means what he thinks it means is beneath him.<\/p>\n<p> See, if you were talking about a statistic that was &#8220;number of deaths<br \/>\nper year&#8221;, then his argument would make sense. Death rates are pretty much<br \/>\nconstant; the number of deaths is roughly proportional to the population size. So ten times more people implies<br \/>\nten times more people dying per year.<\/p>\n<p> But that&#8217;s not what life expectancy means. Life expectancy is the<br \/>\n<em>mean age of death<\/em> calculated over a population.<\/p>\n<p> Suppose that you&#8217;ve got a population of 50 people, of uniformly<br \/>\ndistributed ages. Over time, 20 of them die. Their ages at death are<br \/>\n1\/4, 2, 9, 17, 18, 18, 19, 27, 34, 35, 40, 49, 58, 58, 59,<br \/>\n60, 63, 64, 80, 98. In the remaining 30 people, you&#8217;d say that their<br \/>\nlife expectancy was around 40 years. <\/p>\n<p> Now, suppose you&#8217;ve got 100 people, of uniformly distributed ages.<br \/>\nOver time, 40 of them die, with the same age distribution as the<br \/>\nexample above. What&#8217;s the life expectancy of the people in the larger<br \/>\ngroup? Exactly the same.<\/p>\n<p> Let&#8217;s look at it a different way. Suppose that the average<br \/>\nlife expectancy of people was significantly dependent on<br \/>\npopulation. What would that mean? In increasing order of<br \/>\nstupidity:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li> People living in NYC (population 8.3 million people as of 2007) would<br \/>\nhave dramatically lower life expectancies than people living in<br \/>\nToledo Ohio (population around 700,000 in 2007).<\/li>\n<li> People living in the suburbs have drastically different<br \/>\nlife expectancies, depending on whether you count them as part<br \/>\nof the population of a cities metropolitan area, or as populations of<br \/>\nseparate towns that just happen to be close to the city.<\/p>\n<li> If you calculated the life expectancies of people in the US, Canada,<br \/>\nand Mexico <em>separately<\/em>, and then calculated the life expectancy<br \/>\nof people in North America (excluding Central America), the life expectancy<br \/>\nof people in North America would be <em>lower<\/em> than the life expectancy of any<br \/>\nof the individual countries.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p> Sure, there are some ways of dying that become more likely in a<br \/>\ndensely populated area. NYC has a higher per-capita crime rate than East Podunk, NY.<br \/>\nAnd that does have some effect. High population areas tend to have more pollution,<br \/>\nwhich can lead to reduced life expectancies. But on the other hand, high-population<br \/>\nareas tend to have better hospitals, more skilled doctors, and shorter time-to-hospital<br \/>\nin emergencies, which can all have the opposite effect &#8211; increasing life expectancy.<br \/>\nAs usual in things like this, working out the total effects of population size on<br \/>\nlife expectancy isn&#8217;t at all straightforward. In fact, if you look at<br \/>\na map of life expectancy in cities of different sizes in developed countries, you&#8217;ll find that<br \/>\nthere&#8217;s no strong relationship. (For example, in NYC in the year 2000, the average life expectancy<br \/>\nwas 78.6 years &#8211; 6 years longer than the overall American average. Population<br \/>\ncertainly isn&#8217;t hurting NYC. But if you look at life expectancy over time in NYC,<br \/>\nplotted against population, you&#8217;ll see a mess with no correlation.)<\/p>\n<p> Of course, people like BillO don&#8217;t like it when things are complicated. Much<br \/>\nbetter to just make shit up, spout nonsensical garbage, and shout really loud<br \/>\nwhenever anyone tries to tell you that you&#8217;re wrong.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An alert reader just sent me, via &#8220;Media Matters&#8221;, the single dumbest real-life video clip that I have ever seen. In case you&#8217;ve been living under a rock, Bill O&#8217;Reilly is a conservative radio and TV talk-show host. He&#8217;s known for doing a lot of really obnoxious things, ranging from sexually harassing at least one [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[71,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-economics","category-bad-statistics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-cM","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}