Research shows who dies when and where

This study reminded me of how statistics and odds are sometimes (always?) almost meaningless.

Usually you hear what the average lifespan for an American man or woman is. Gender and nationality are factored in, but not race or location within the country. But, this study shows that those factors make a huge difference in your expected life expectancy.

"Asians can expect to live more than 15 years longer than high-risk urban blacks."

Now, I'm making an assumption here -- I want to admit that I haven't looked to see if this is accurate -- I'm assuming that urban black males have a high risk of dying young. And by young, I mean in their 20s or earlier, not young as in just younger than when most people die. So, what if you have an urban black male who is already 50 years old? Is his life expectancy still the same as an urban black male who is 5?

I know this has been pointed out to me before; odds don't really apply to a single individual person. I'm a white middle-class female living in a suburban area. This study predicts my life expectancy. But it doesn't take into account a LOT of other factors that are specific to just me. My family's health history, my personal habits, etc.

I've really liked stats classes I've taken. But, I think I fundametally don't *get* stats. I wish I did.

And that reminds me of another thing I don't get regarding stats... why is it that when there's a 40% chance of rain everyone acts as though it's *going* to rain??? It's more likely that it's NOT going to rain, right? But, hearing there's a 40% chance, people say "Oh, it's going to rain today."

I do not get it.

So, it's been a while since I posted. Oh well.

And this is a *really* cheesy post, I know.

Where were you and what were you doing this morning five years ago today? Can't help but remember, right? It became a cliche even before a day had passed, probably.

I first heard about the planes hitting the towers when I got in my car on the way to work. I was living in Urbana, IL. My car's radio station was set to NPR and they were reporting on it. My first thought was that it was some sort of anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 -- not immediately remembering exactly what year that had happened or that it had been winter. I'd been in NYC during that one.

By the time I got to work I had a better understanding of what had happened and I immediately went online to get more info. (Whoa, that there's an indication of how much had changed since 1993, huh?) We had a small tv at work that we tried to get reception on and watch -- didn't work very well and the web was a much better source of info. Then people slowly got back to work. I went home for lunch and was in complete shock that there were people just walking around campus as though nothing was different. I was actually pissed off about that. I couldn't understand how there could be a single person who didn't feel traumatized and ready to break into tears. Actually, I still can't.

I still get teary-eyed when I *really* think about it -- as opposed to just thinking about it, I don't know, I guess "politically" or as simply a news event. When I read stories about the women (mostly) who were engaged to people who died in the attack. Even just reading about that 9/11 documentary about that firehouse in NYC. Total waterworks. It surprises me since I don't think of myself as "emotional."

The actual attack itself is just something I don't think I will ever be able to think about or talk about "rationally." I can have discussions about what the United States has done to make other groups hate us. I can rationally discuss what some terrorist groups might be "right" about. I can NOT talk about anything remotely similar to how the 9/11 WTC attack might have been deserved, which I've heard people voice. "Just shut the F up if that's what you're going to suggest to me!"

And normally, I *love* having discussions with people about things that I disagree with. I'm always open to having my mind changed. BUT there are a few exceptions to that. A few things that I am just NOT open to having my mind changed about and since I know myself well enough to know that that's possible, I'll admit up front that I just don't want to discuss it. One is the existence of a higher power. People who are SO certain that they KNOW there IS one and exactly what he/she wants or is like piss me off. OTOH, I don't want to be convinced that a higher power doesn't exist either. I like believing that one does and I don't see what the harm is in possibly being wrong about that. (I don't mind someone trying to convince me that there IS harm in being wrong, though. I suppose if someone changed my view on that then I might be open to being convinced that there is no higher power, too. But not now.) Two: Let's not argue about pro-choice vs. pro-life. It's not so much that I don't think my point of view can be changed as that I don't think it's a decidable issue. (The issue being whether or not abortion is murder.) Kind of like the belief in a higher power or not -- it's just NOT knowable. And I can't help but wonder if that has something to do with Godel's Theorem, but I never have the patience to go figure that out. And third: 9/11 WTC. I just do NOT want to discuss the morality of it. NO no no. I just can't. I don't even know anyone who was killed. I don't even know anyone who KNOWS anyone who was killed. Yet it's still just too close and emotional for me to discuss. End of story.

Now, really, having only three issues that I don't feel able to debate with a clear rational mind isn't too bad, is it?

Wow, I go off on tangents a lot...