On Mon, 13 May 2002, Michael Etchison wrote:
> >I can state for the record that "correlation does not imply causation"
> is far too advanced a concept for most reporters, even those who are
> supposed to have a technical bent.
> That may well be so, but the story you pointed us to does not support it
> (speaking of unwarranted inferences <g>). Dr. Brothers did not say that
> drinking causes wealth.
No, she said she's known about this literature for years, it doesn't
surprise her one bit and, oh, it's wrong. She also apparently "criticizes
it" because it "might encourage binge drinking." I suppose one could
charitably interpret this remark as asserting that others who fail to
recognize issues of causality may misinterpret the findings, but that
interpretation is not apparent from the article. Of course, I must admit
the possibility that Dr. Joyce has also been misquoted.
However, also note the first statement in the piece is "the more men
drink, the more they make." Perhaps Michael and others on this list
correctly, as second nature, interpret that without the causal inference,
but that isn't likely what the reporter meant, and it certainly isn't how
it's interpreted widely -- I illustrate with the following radio show
dialogue concerning the Fox piece sent to me by Mark Witte, an economist
at Northwestern ("I'm reading right off Fox news!" gets my vote as worst
argument from authority ever). Before that bit of amusement, I would note
that: (1) the piece in the WSJ was the only one that I think didn't
misrepresent my work and (2) for those interested, the paper is available
from
http://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca/smokes6.pdf
Cheers, Chris.
And now, radio follies:
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Mark Witte wrote:
> >Yesterday morning as I sat down in front of the computer and opened the
> >coffee, I heard Kirby Wilbur, KVI talk radio host, say:
> >
> >"There's a new study by a Canadian economist that says the more you drink,
> >the more you earn. But I don't believe it, because I don't drink and I earn
> >good money. So I want callers to tell me what they think".
> >
> >ME: Ah, sheesh.
> >
> >Caller #1: I can believe it, my uncle is a real lush, and he makes money
> >hand over fist as a salesman.
> >
> >Caller #2: "I think he's got it backwards, people who earn more, drink
> >more.
> >
> >Caller #3: You can't hold a job if you're drunk all the time
> >
> >Caller #4: This is just another economist who's trying to get a Phd or a
> >grant by saying something contrary to common sense.
> >
> >Me: #*&%, what the hell is that phone number.
> >
> > Then (to the call screener): Look, I know Chris Auld and I...
> >
> >Screener: Who?
> >
> >Me: The economist whose study your host is talking about. And I know the
> >study, and it's being misrepresented.
> >
> >Screener: Oh, okay. Turn your radio off.
> >
> >Host: We go to Pat in Kent.
> >
> >Me: Kirby, I know Chris Auld. I've read his study, and it is not being
> >accurately depicted...
> >
> >Host: I'm reading it right off Fox News.
> >
> >Me: Then Fox News got it wrong, because all Chris found is that (for
> >Canadian men only) people who don't drink at all, or only drink rarely,
> >will earn on average about 10% less than others.
> >
> >Host: It says people who drink earn more than people who don't by
> >substantial amounts, and people who drink a whole lot earn a whole lot
> >more.
> >
> >Me: That's not what the study found.
> >
> >Host: Well, I just want to know why...
> >
> >Me: Chris says he doesn't know why, he's going to do more studies. But you
> >aren't going to find out why, by taking a bunch of anecdotes from your
> >listeners. Especially since they don't have accurate information on what is
> >in the study.
> >
> >Host: I'm trying to find out why by getting a lot of ideas...
> >
> >Me: You're expecting a lot of econometricians to call in?
> >
> >Host: Economists don't know everything. There's Marxist economists....
> >
> >Me: I've known Chris for 3 or 4 years, and don't have a clue what his
> >political beliefs are, since he doesn't let them intrude into his work.
> >He's a professional health economist, and serious about it.
> >
> >Host: Well, I didn't say he was a Marxist. My job is to get people to give
> >me...
> >
> >Me: Shouldn't your job be to be accurate about what you say?
> >
> >Host: What did I say that isn't accurate?
> >
> >Me: That, "the more people drink the more they earn". That isn't accurate.
> >
> >Host: That's what it says!
> >
> >Me: (stunned silence)
> >
> >Host: (taking his opportunity) Why do you think it is?
> >
> >Me: (resignedly) I have no idea, and...
> >
> >Host: (hangs up on me)
> >
> >I mutter, hang up, turn the radio back on to hear the host announcing it's
> >time for the news. And, "after the news we'll talk some more about the
> >Canadian study that says the more you drink the more you'll earn".
>
>
> Mark Witte
> Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
