posted
I found an article <url removed --PJ> very interesting. Now, it does repeat some things that the LDS church has fixed, the racism bit, for example; it is clearly going out of its way to view the LDS church in the worst possible light. Nonetheless, the actual statistics are quite interesting. Briefly, Mormons living in Utah have a much higher life expectancy than non-Mormons in Utah, even when controlled for smoking. However, the life expectancy for Mormons is about the same as for non-smoking, non-Mormons in the rest of the country. The author's conclusion is that LDS church membership doesn't increase your life expectancy; rather, being a non-member in a heavily Mormon-dominated state lowers it.
Now, two thoughts occur to me : First, is it possible that life expectancy in Utah is actually being lowered by climate, or another confounding factor, and then the Mormon church is raising it again for its members? I should like to hear thoughts about that from people who live in Utah. Second, if we take the author's conclusion as true for a moment, what does that imply for the LDS church's self-image?
posted
I think it all comes down to stress levels. In my opionion religious folk tend to live less stressful lives. Their lives are more centered on the community and their family, then their employment as one example. Most religions have some sort of day of rest, when done properly it truly does lower stress levels. Also just being a minority can definitely add an extra stress in life. I think you would find very similar statistics with Jews in Israel and Catholics in Italy.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do feel that if the Cards wish to censor their website, they have a perfectly capable mod, and indeed themselves possess admin privileges, and can manage the trick without the intervention of civilian vigilantes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I saw the original study linked here at hatrack, so don't know why a refuting article would be a problem.
Its obvious that the authors have their own strong biases, but so did the authors of the original study. Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I checked the site you linked, KoM, and despite their claims that they are not anti-LDS, I believe they would be considered so by the Cards, so I'm removing the link from your post. No problem with the discussion at this point, though. (Xavier, if you can recall/recover the direct link to the study, that would probably be cool.)
The article I linked to is perfectly civil; it presents actual, statistical data in a footnoted, checkable manner, and draws reasonable conclusions from the numbers. If this forum's members (or the Cards) are so thin-skinned that they cannot handle a link to such an article, then they do not deserve to have politeness extended to them at all.
Now, I am actually rather interested in the questions I raised in my original post. I would much prefer that this thread does not become a discussion on whether or not the site I linked to should be considered impolite. If you really cannot handle this level of criticism of the LDS church, then I suggest that you start your own thread on how terribly rude I am; I won't participate in that one, and you do not need to participate in this one. But if you haven't got anything constructive to say, please go away. I won't respond to further posts on this subject.
Edit : This was in response to katharina.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be happy to discuss the central issue: Why is it unhealthy to be a non-member in Utah?
IF that is true (a very big if), I think it would be social networks. I don't have the studies in front of me, but the difference between having a social network and not can mean years in a person's life. One of the great things about the church is the social network it provides. One of the byproducts of that built-in social network is that where the church is a majority, it is possible that other social avenues are not as present. In other words, if you don't belong to the biggest club in town, you don't have that many options.
I think that's part of what President Hinkley is talking about when he keeps admonishing members in General Conference to be neighborly and friendly to and build community ties with everyone, regardless of whether or not they are coming to church.
posted
I agree that the article is offensive and that it was a mistake to post it, KoM.
That being said, the author clearly has an agenda, and, like most researchers with an agenda, skews his results to accomodate his preconceived conclusions. His primary thesis is that being a non-Mormon in Utah significantly lowers your life expectancy. As proof he compares a scientific study to published tables from several life insurance companies. I imagine the methodologies of the various studies differ significantly, and so would the statistical significance of the results, but no mention of that is made in the report. Additionally, the only environmental variable he controls for is smoking/non-smoking when there are several other potentially confounding variables. I have more issues with the article but won't recite them here. Simply put, as a piece of scientific research it is, to use Anderson's own phrase, fatally flawed.
The article isn't simply an offense to the LDS members of the board it is an offense to the reasonable and rational dialogue we all (regarless of religious perspective) attempt to engage in.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You clearly did not read the article. The author is presenting data gathered by a Mormon apologist trying to show that Mormons live longer. They agree on the actual data, namely that Mormons in Utah really do live longer than non-Mormons. Where they differ is in the interpretation. Now, do you really want to claim that Mormons live longer than the general, non-Utahn population? Because there are plainly some data that contradict this.
As for your confounding variables, perhaps you did not read my original post, either; what are they, specifically? I did ask about this.
Finally, just what is it you find so offensive about the article? It presents numbers that are not entirely favourable to the LDS church, true. Do you challenge the numbers? Then please say so, and give reasons, instead of hiding behind this 'offense' nonsense. If you do not disagree with the numbers, what is your problem?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I did read the article (your assertion to the contrary) despite how offensive it was to me (although I did zone out prior to the author's conclusions, being sufficiently annoyed by his lack of documented methodology). I thought the science was bad, or at least the reporting of it. Taking multiple, disparate studies and throwing them into a table and claiming you've proved something statistically relevant isn't good science. Maybe the intent of the article wasn't to be scientific, and maybe there's a more thorough explanation of method lying in the articles quoted in Apendices B and C, but at face value I found the article useless as anything but an insubstantial thesis.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Now, do you really want to claim that Mormons live longer than the general, non-Utahn population? Because there are plainly some data that contradict this.
It's the plainly here with which I disagree. It's not plain to me at all that the studies cited are comparing identical things, or were performed using a statistically identical method. The author didn't give me any reason to assume there is a common baseline, by citing the relevant methods. That's my frustration.
quote:As for your confounding variables, perhaps you did not read my original post, either; what are they, specifically? I did ask about this.
Environment, altitude, genetics, social structure (mentioned by Kat), drug use other than inhaled tobacco, poverty, education, participation in violent or dangerous activities, I don't know. There are some though, which is the problem I always have with "social" science. You can never have a controlled experiment.
quote:Finally, just what is it you find so offensive about the article? It presents numbers that are not entirely favourable to the LDS church, true. Do you challenge the numbers? Then please say so, and give reasons, instead of hiding behind this 'offense' nonsense. If you do not disagree with the numbers, what is your problem?
What I find offensive about the article is that is written from a position of anger and bitterness, rather than a position of honest intellectual inquiry. As a scientist I'm surprised that you aren't similarly offended. I'm further offended by the author's evident predilection for disparaging the LDS church in offhand statements. I don't have the original article open, so I can't cite specific examples, but my impression was that the author believed Mormon scientists to be incapable of rationality. As a scientist and a Mormon I find that offensive.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm struggling to find some connection between the thread's title and the thread's topic: life expectancies of Mormons and non-Mormons living in Utah, but I cannot find it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Substitute 'areas with a religion that dominates public life' for 'theocracy', if you prefer. My title is shorter, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should have called it 'Mormons Kill - A Study'. Or 'Mormon Apologists Lie - Here's proof.' Or 'Mormonism Erodes Life-force' or something.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started reading this thread after the post was removed, so I cannot comment on the study, the data, or the interpretation.
From the sounds of it, I don't see how this study violates the user agreement. But, I'll never know because I can't look at it myself. Something is really wrong when people are protected from any challenging ideas to their beliefs. It reminds me of Communist China or Catholic banned book lists.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it within the rules for me to link to a forum where a poster links to the article? Alternatively, this is how I found it : Go to 'www.iidb.org', find the 'Separation of Church and State' forum, and look for the thread "The impact of Theocracy on the non-religious".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. A general statistical axiom is that the mean of a non-random subset of a large population will not be representative of the mean of the large population. So I am not surprized that the non-Mormon Utah non-smoking population has a life expectancy different from the general non-smoking population. It could have been higher or lower. I don't think one can make much of the results.
Furthermore, Utah is hardly a theocracy. It was during the late 1800's during B. Young's era, before becoming a state, but you will have a hard time convincing me it is one now. Utah does have a large Mormon population and the LDS structure is hierarchal, but that does not make a theocracy.
I am agnostic now, but I think the premise of this guy's article is faulty and he does not reveal his methods. I have not read the pro-Mormon article. It likely has similar problems, but that is not an excuse for Anderson to be sloppy.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A general statistical axiom is that the mean of a non-random subset of a large population will not be representative of the mean of the large population.
I believe that you are mis-applying this. The reason a non-random sample has a different mean is that the non-random part, whatever it is, comes into play. (Incidentally, a life expectancy difference of five years is highly significant.) So, if you find that non-smokers in Utah have a different life expectancy than non-smokers elsewhere, you don't say "Oh well, that follows from this axiom", you say "What the devil is different about Utah?"
Consider the following scenario : A study finds that smokers have a lower life expectancy than non-smokers. "Oh well", says the tobacco company representative, "in a non-random sample, you expect the mean to be different, so you can't conclude anything from this". How is this different from your argument? If you permit that logic, you can never study correlations at all, because they are meaningless!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's the power of prayer. If you're a Mormon in Utah, and you're sick, and a couple thousand members of your church pray for you, who knows if you don't live longer?
Oh the other hand, if you've got a few people praying that you stop messing up their perfectly good state with your heathen butt...
P.S. This whole thread is trolltastic KOM. Theocracy, removed links, wow. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM said: "Consider the following scenario : A study finds that smokers have a lower life expectancy than non-smokers. "Oh well", says the tobacco company representative, "in a non-random sample, you expect the mean to be different, so you can't conclude anything from this". How is this different from your argument? If you permit that logic, you can never study correlations at all, because they are meaningless!"
The problem is with the subset being so much smaller than the larger population. They are not comparable. The stardard deviations are likely to be very different as a direct result of the number of participants. Real correlational studies, use groups of comparable size. This one time a priori comparision of two group means that are of vastly different sizes takes unfair advantage of chance. I'd at least like to see the results replicated with comparable sample sizes and then a confirmatory factor analysis to see how well this relationship holds up.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correlational statistics rest on a few assumptions such as comparable standard deviations, random sampling, and normal distributions within groups, etc. When these assumptions are violated to a great degree, any statistical operations are meaningless.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
We're trying to see if the non-Mormon, non-smoking people in Utah have a lower life expectancy than the non-Mormon, non-smoking population elsewhere, right? The only variable we're testing is living in Utah. So...
Isn't it just a two population hypothesis test?
Mean(Utah) - Mean(Elsewhere) = Mean(Difference) Null hypothesis: Mean(Difference) is greater than or equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Mean(Difference) is less than zero. Then you use a t-distribution, find your p-value, and compare it to alpha. If it's less than alpha, you can reject the null and say that there is sufficient statistical evidence to infer that the life expectancy of non-Mormon, non-smokers in Utah is less than that of non-Mormon, non-smokers elsewhere.
Is that wrong?
You're not comparing a very small sample to a general population; you're comparing random samples of two different populations. That should be a legitimate test.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm sorry for the statistical jargon, but I'm not well versed enough in statistics to be able to put it into layman's terms.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celaeno: That is exactly how the test should be done. But, look at the sample sizes in the study.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's just because it's nearly two in the morning and my brain has stopped functioning properly, but I can't find anything in the article about the sample sizes. It doesn't seem to say how the data was gathered.
Then I looked at the Merrill article itself and the data seems to have been collected legitimately. I don't see a sample size problem. Granted, I only skimmed the article, but nothing seems out of the ordinary.
quote:being a non-member in a heavily Mormon-dominated state lowers it.
Now, two thoughts occur to me : First, is it possible that life expectancy in Utah is actually being lowered by climate, or another confounding factor, and then the Mormon church is raising it again for its members?
Bryce Courtenay explores this effect in his book 'The Power of One.' Courtenay implies that the power of a mass of similarly thinking people, directed in malice toward a smaller population can have drastic and dramatic results.
That's right. Utah Mormons can kill you with their brains
This is why Mormons believe in proselyting. The more "converts" (let's be honest: what Mormons mean is converters, as in power converters) Mormonism obtains, the stronger our brain-wave-of-death becomes.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone was trying to tell me why some "research" which was a review of literature was bad, because the numbers it was extrapolated were based on studies that had different methodologies. As I understand it, but the original study and the refuting study suffer from this.
My own opinion is that Mormons are less likely to die from cancer and stroke, but more likely to die from heart disease and diabetes. But this conjecture is based on the popularity of ice cream, jello, and cookies.
Just before I left Utah it was reported on the news that Mormons in Utah are fatter than non-Mormons in Utah. Which was an unfortunate way to report it since I've "heard" that Bulemia is a big problem at the church sponsored University out there. One of the Apostles had tried to deliver a message that women not be so obsessive about their appearance.
posted
A response to kat's post (the one that was on the subject), I agree about the social network aspect. But that's because I have a good friend who lived in SLC for a year and a half who isn't Mormon, and he felt shunned. Now, this person is prone to melodrama, so it's very possible it wasn't as bad as he made it out to be. But I do believe that you're excluded from quite a few community activities in any area where one religion dominates and you're not a member of it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That's right. Utah Mormons can kill you with their brains
This is why Mormons believe in proselyting. The more "converts" (let's be honest: what Mormons mean is converters, as in power converters) Mormonism obtains, the stronger our brain-wave-of-death becomes.
So, it's THEIR fault my cable modem pooped out last night? Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe me, if the Mo's turn the brain-wave-of-death on you, the last thing you should be worried about is your teeth.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
enoch, surely you cannot seriously be asserting that the non-Mormon population of Utah is so small that a difference of five years in expected lifetime can be reasonably assigned to statistical fluctuations. That's a huge effect.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darn. Nobody shows the number of subjects used to calculate the life expectancy rates for the general non-smoking population (not future financial, or Hatton, and you can't view the Canadian Institute of Actuaries data online).
I can only imagine that Future Financial and Hatton looked at a large random sample of the US population. (The Canadian results might not be generalizable to Americans). My problem is (besides the fact that Anderson doesn't tell us anything about how the data he cited was created) the data from Future Financial and Hatton were most likely created from a huge population relative to the non-smoking, non-Mormon Utah population and likely included some of the non-smoking, non-Mormon Utah population in their subject pool as well as Utah Mormons as they did not break out their results by religion.
So, we are not comparing two different groups of comparable size, but we are comparing a very large group (American non-smokers) to a small subset of that group (Utah non-Mormon non-smokers). I don't care to go into reasons why that is not a fair comparison as I feel that I have spent enough time on it.
Best I can tell, the number of non-Mormon Utahns included in Merrill's study was 20,000 (page 7 of the pdf file). Using percentages of non-smoking non-LDS from page 5, roughly 77% of 20,000 or 15,400 was the number of non-smoking non-LDS Utahns in Merrill's study. Life expectancy studies for the general US population typically have subject numbers in the millions.
You just can't compare a group composed of 15,000 to a group made up of millions, even if the groups were independent. But, in this case, they are not, as the millions group did not exclude non-smoking non-Mormon Utahns from their sample.
You may want to debate me on my assumptions. I am done with it. We are ignoring the biggest elephant in the room though, Utah is not a theocracy.
Maybe non-smoking non-LDS Utahns do in fact have lower life expectancies than the general non-smoking population, if so it might be fun to speculate why that is, but this study does not demonstrate that. And theocracy would not be a reason for the difference because theocracy does not exist in Utah.
I do know that the suicide rate is higher in the Rocky Mountain states than in the rest of the country. Researchers speculate that it may be due to suicide attempts are more often lethal in the Mountain West because they are more often to use guns than other would be suiciders.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You just can't compare a group composed of 15,000 to a group made up of millions, even if the groups were independent.
Excuse me, but you certainly can. The question is whether the standard deviation of the smaller group is sufficiently small that the results are statistically significant. Since 15000 is a very good approximation to infinity, and five years is a huge discrepancy, the comparison is highly relevant.
Again, you are perfectly at liberty to describe Utah as an 'area with a single, highly dominant, religion', if you prefer. I chose the shorter phrase.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You just can't compare a group composed of 15,000 to a group made up of millions, even if the groups were independent.
I curious to know why you think this is the case. My understanding of statistics is that such a comparison is almost trivially easy, rather than impossible as you suggest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
