hola bebido! bien, y tu?
bueno pues antonio.
(dime=tell me.)
Printable View
hola bebido! bien, y tu?
bueno pues antonio.
(dime=tell me.)
y aqui que esta pasando ?
todos estan hablando en espagnol :D .
acabo de ver la pelicula SAW , esta mejor la primera que la nueva que acaba de salir .
ay caramba habla espanol tu tambien!!!
pues si , yo vengo de Guatemala , tu eres Mexicana no Misombrita ?
I agree with this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra
The research was made analysing statistical data based on life longevity of both "married" and "single" communities. The analysis show that on statistical level married couples demonstrated a higher potential for longer life span due to a number of factors (Such as better well being due to both partners looking after one another, better chance of spotting damaging health symproms and therefore get early treatment, better financial resources due to combined incomes etc...)
But I kind of expected there would be people saying things like. "Oh, but i know this guy who's old and single and he hasn't yet died, well that definetely proves the research is wrong". Or "Well, but if you are married you can still get hit by a trcuk or a plane can fall on your head or you can be attacked by a mad goat and die a horrible death..." What i'm not seeing is statistics and research and percentage of married people affected (e.g. The percentage of married people attacked by mad goats compared to single people) :D
I also think that the results apply to single (As in without a partner and not looking) and married (As in living together with a wife) people. I classify outgoing folks, with social lifestyles and good dating experience as a different category.
Great to see so many responses though :)
Way over my head.
Really? But all of your responses were very good :)Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
I'm just trying to get a better argument backed up with something substantial from a couple of others...
I mean statistical analysis methodologies. I get MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over). I take it, though, that the one method apprehends a pattern of events over time at the expense of identifying unique variables, while the other captures a pattern of unique varibale at the expense of a timeline. Like a snapshot versus a film. (?)
I don't think I agree with all that. Yeah they have done research on it and have things to prove their theories but, Like Ov said they don't have a diagnosis for for death caused by being single. Yes you have someone that will notice things before you and urge you into the doctor, But I cannot believe or agree that if your single and not looking you will die sooner than a married couple. I mean there could be so many other reasons for that happening to the people they studied. Depression has a major effect on lots of things and I think that will have something to do with it.
Uh uh uh. Not WILL. But, MORE LIKELY TO...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud
Just like if you are a chain smoker, there is no proven fact which says that you WILL die sooner than a person who doesn't smoke. But you are MORE LIKELY TO due to statistics available of life spans of both chain smokers and non smokers, and percentage ratio comparissons of deaths from both groups.
This one is a similar analogy. Take statistical data of deaths ratios in equal amount of people from both communities (In the same living environment e.g. same suburbs) over a period of time up to a certain age and then comapre the ratio of deaths. The statistics in this research appear to show that "statistically" community made of individuals who are single have a 9% risk to die sooner than the individuals in the community of married people, therefore individuals who are married are MORE LIKELY TO live longer not withstanding in comparison to some special cases (E.g. to Very sociable, multi dating, single individuals etc...)
I mean, you can refuse to believe due to some personal predispositions and it will still hold true for some, but do you have a reasonable argument that persuades otherwise or tells the opposite? E.g. OV believes that even though you are married you can still get hit by a bus and therefore die. But in that case are we saying that the above research does not apply because some one who is married has more chances of being hit by a bus than someone who is single? Because if both have similar chances of being hit by a bus, that means the data above still holds true...
that would be a longitudinal study vs. cross-sectional. frizz committed the ecological fallacy. it has to do with mixing different levels of analysis, over- generalizing. just because a high divorce rate corresponds with suicide on an national level doesn't mean that one person is going to commit suicide if they're divorced. just because age of death corresponds with being single doesn't mean a person is going to die because they're single.Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Right. And just because you say all that doesn't mean I understand a word of it.
::appears a visit to the library is in order if I intend to have an intelligent conversation with any of THESE people. Friggin' eggheads.::
Thats right, they are just more likely too...Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra
Hayward, stop pretending you don't understand. I know you better than that :)
No. I shit you not. I can almost grasp the fundamentals. But when it comes applying the metrics, I'm like a crazy man in a kitchen banging pots and pans together.
THIS is PRECISELY one of the reasons, kids, YOU DON'T WANT TO QUIT HIGH-SCHOOL. Being an autodidact is all well and good, but you end having these HUGE gaps in your basic education the produce GIGANTIC blind spots in your understanding. They begin to annoy you so much, you end up going to libraries to learn what you COULD'VE learned way back when if only you hadn't been so busy being a know-it-all punk.
i quit high school.