Scientific Illiteracy in Anti-Smoking Ad

no smoking photo
Image by mag3737

As I was watching TV in my hotel room the other night, I caught one of the latest commercials by the truth anti-smoking campaign. While I’m no fan of smoking, I found the ad to be offensive, because of the stunning lack of credibility.

I’ll let you judge the ad for yourself first, than add my comments:

In general, smoking is linked with lower educational attainment. Which…usually means you’re going to earn less. It’s one of the many, many factors that contributes to your employment opportunities. And it’s only one characteristic that contributes to something called the “smoking wage gap.”

Which is a hugely complicated issue, and, yeah, we’re only focusing on a small aspect of it, because focusing on a small aspect lets us actually focus on something we can change.

But because of that wage gap, young smokers can miss out on up to $10,000 per year.

$10,000 per year!

This is one of those statistics that is factually correct, but also completely irrelevant. Unfortunately, we now live in a society where this level of scientific dishonesty is considered “smart”.

The ad even admits that the fact that smokers earn 20% less, in general, than non-smokers is a complicated matter, and they are only focusing on one small part of it to make it easier for anyone who doesn’t want to think through the whole issue. They’re encouraging you to be dumb while encouraging you to get “the truth” about smoking. Nice.

The fact, though, is that if you quit smoking, or don’t start smoking, you will not be gaining $10,000 per year. You’re not suddenly going to get a higher level of educational achievement either. If you stop smoking, you will stop smoking. That’s it.

People who smoke don’t earn less money because they smoke. There is no causal relationship between smoking and earning, but it appears that having a statistic with a convenient relationship has become the standard by which we measure an idea now, no need to show that one causes the other.

But really, even without studying the data, can’t we easily assume that smoking is a bad decision? People who make bad decisions are more likely to smoke, perhaps because they lack education! They are also more likely to make other bad decisions, and some of those decisions will result in earning less money. Stopping smoking would be a good decision, no doubt, but it wouldn’t magically undo all those other decisions.

But that would require some thought, I guess, and the folks at truth don’t want to bother us with all of that. Just stop smoking so you can make more money. It’s like magic!

I realize that I’m ranting about an ad that encourages people to stop smoking so it’s not really going to hurt anyone if they follow the advice in the ad, but it’s the larger picture that truly bothers me. So many decisions are made politically, culturally, and personally, based on statistics like this one, with no deeper understanding of what is underneath the surface. Think, for example, of a statistic like this one, which I completely made up while sitting in a coffee shop:

Students at elite universities are 50% more likely to drink specialty coffee than the rest of their age group. 

Kids, here have more latte! Public schools should be putting in espresso machines! Welfare recipients should get Starbucks cards for their children! Pumpkin Spice Lattes alone will lead US students to massive increases in standardized test scores!

Or, maybe students at elite universities have more disposable income than most of the other people in their age group, and spend more on coffee, as opposed to what they drink somehow leading to academic success.

See how drawing the wrong conclusion can create lots of problems?

OK rant mode off… 😉

 

Similar Posts

  • Traffic blocks

    According to Dave this morning: “Can you believe it — there are weblogs that turn away traffic based on referrer. This is bad practice. These people seriously need to take a refresher course in what the Web is about and how important links are and stop screwing around with them. I won’t read sites that…

  • |

    How would you explain it?

    OK so it’s a simple concept to most of you guys, but obviously, our various users don’t quite grasp this, and I’m wondering what the best way to explain it is. Here’s the scenario: User needs data copied to a laptop from the network so he can work on it offline from some other location…

  • |

    Linked: Data From Fake Legal Requests Used to Sexually Extort Minors

    In this case, we have an emergency process. There are good reasons to have that process, if someone is threatening violence to themselves on social media, it’s useful for the tech company to share some information with law enforcement so they can be reached. But, having the ability to get that kind of response from tech companies is also an invitation to hackers. If they can create a fake emergency request they can collect personal information about any user. They can then use that information to target that individual.

    When you create that kind of system, the request needs to be coming from a safe, verified, source. When the source is compromised, and the receiver doesn’t have an excellent validation process, bad things are going to happen.

    Because when you have that kind of data, people will try and do bad things with it.

  • |

    Summation as Research Database

    I had an interesting conversation with an attorney today, who is doing something rather interesting with our document review tool, Summation. He’s gotten so used to reviewing documents in it, and searching in it, and come to rely on the OCR search especially, that he’s pulled together a bunch of random emails, articles, white papers,…

  • |

    Linked: A Data-Driven Approach to Identifying — and Retaining — Top Employees

    Of course, the reality is, and everyone who has ever been passed over for recognition and promotion by someone who “looked” like they were getting a lot done when they really weren’t, know this, most managers who relied on “seeing” their reports while walking around were never really that good at identifying who is doing the best job.

    But now, that people will continue to work all over the place, and using collaborative workspaces that have data available about who is doing what, and who is communicating with whom, it’s going to be all about the data. The tools are there. Will managers use them, and get better at managing talent?

  • Chance to give feedback

    Yes, it’s true. You can help out some bloggers by giving them feedback. They’re looking for it! First, Darren Barefoot is asking, “why do you blog?” I filled out the survey, and look forward to seeing what other folks have to say. (hat tip to Steve Matthews, where I first saw the link) Secondly, Douglas…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Find out more about Webmentions.)