| back |
 |
Dear Mr. Moody,
I was trying to calculate how many years should be deducted from a persons natural life expectancy for being a complete idiot. Or are regular people just as at risk of having their lives cut short by the actions of the incompetent. I would greatly appreciate any input you could give me on this topic. Laslo |
 |
This is another one of those questions that hinges entirely on how we proceed with our definitions. How does one define "idiot" here? Do we treat it as simply a matter of having below-average intelligence (technically an IQ below 80)? Or do we look at people who do idiotically dangerous things instead? There's also the question of whether or not we should include unhealthy lifestyle choices (such as eating at McDonalds every day, or not wearing a seatbelt) along with more obviously stupid events like autoerotic asphyxiation? It's no simple exercise. Fortunately, since I'm the one doing the analysis, I get to make the distinctions. I prefer to think of "idiocy" as being defined by behaviours, not by innate intelligence. This is because it's simplistic and presumptuous to suppose that some people can be all stupid, all the time. Most ordinary tasks can be performed well by a person with an IQ of 50 or more. Meanwhile, people from all walks of life do hideously moronic things to themselves and to each another every single day. Consequently, it strikes me as fairer and much less discriminatory to judge people based on their deeds instead of their abilities. So when you see me talking about "stupidity" here, I am really referring to foolish choices. Some of them are big and reckless and kill instantly; others are small and incremental and take years. All of them demonstrate that idiocy increases your risk of an early death.
It is important to remember, though, that an entire body of actuarial statistics has evolved around the estimation of impacts made by different factors upon an average lifespan and that I currently (and shall forevermore) lack a Masters degree in statistics and probability. Epidemiologists spend their whole careers working out problems like this, and without all the ambiguity of five hundred different variables mashed together under an oversimplified label called "idiocy." Having said that, of course, it doesn't take a lot of research before it becomes clear to even an amateur that stupidity does indeed have an inverse relationship to lifespan. To say that my methods lack scientific validity is still something of an understatement, however, so do talk to your friendly neighbourhood statistician before quoting me in JAMA. One of the things that makes this analysis so difficult is the fact that idiocy itself is counterbalanced by all kinds of overlapping variables like the existence of a health care system to treat our stupidity-induced injuries, and the sheer competence and foresight of the people around us. We should also thank lawyers for giving stupid people a second chance. Everytime someone dies as a result of doing something completely idiotic with a consumer product, someone else gets sued. The result is the appearance of warning labels, clearly telling people not to do things that anyone else with just a little common sense would realize is harmful. [legal note: this is not to say that serious injuries caused by corporate negligence are necessarily trivial, or that victims don't deserve compensation. The McDonalds coffee scalding case, mistakenly considered by many as an example of trivial litigaton, actually involved extensive third degree burns to the crotch and legs of an elderly woman, and required skin grafts]. For this reason, any approximation of the relationship between stupidity and longevity must take into account the mitigating factors (like how smart the people around you are, and how well doctors can patch you up) as well as aggravating ones (like how stupid you are). On the other hand, we are all also put at risk by the incompetence of the people around us, as your question suggests, and this must be accounted for too. I call this variable "d1" and it is calculated by multiplying the population of your locality by 0.01. More people simply equates to more stupid people, and the greater potential for them to affect your life in some way. The figure determined by final aggragate of these interacting factors is known as your morbid stupidity index (or MSI). "Morbidity" in the technical sense refers to the state of being diseased. For our purposes, the disease takes the form of such profoundly stupid behaviour that it manifests in physical harm. Depending on the kinds of idiotic things you are apt to do, your individual MSI goes up, eventually reaching a terminal point at which it is basically a miracle that you lived to be as old as you are now. I elaborate on the catagories of idiocy further below. So -- The forumula to determine MSI is:
where:
X1 = all small foolish choices x 2
D1 = stupidity of others = (0.01 x population of your area) If you make any of these foolish choices (examples follow below) more than twice per week, multiply it by 3 before adding it to the others. The following graph clearly illustrates how your MSI impacts on your lifespan:
|
| |
|
Summary of Data:
Each idiotic act increases your MSI, and proportionately decreases the number of years left to you. The rate at which your MSI increases will depend, however, on the types of activities you are inclined to engage in over a week, and how often. Taking small but ongoing risks (like crossing the street without looking both ways) can impact your longevity as much as something rather more asinine like driving while talking on a cellphone once a week. Below you'll find a table of examples for each category -- small, intermediate, and extremely stupid choices. Basically, though, the higher your MSI becomes, the shorter your life must be. Of course, it is critical to note that these predictions are based on the mean impact of MSI upon lifespan. Almost any stupid thing you do at a given moment could wind up killing you or someone else, and most of the time it is only the competence of the world around you and your own good luck that prevents your sudden death. The balance of catastrophic deaths and bafflingly long lifetimes influences the distribution of averages, such that it takes the shape that it does. Small Foolish Choices (X1) are fleeting and thoughtless. They typically involve taking some small risk in order to save time or money, or otherwise seemed like a good idea at the time. They are sometimes risks we take for fun, and are always perceived as minor hazards well worth chancing. Nevertheless, they can and do kill. Each of these that you perform adds two points to your Morbid Stupidity Index. Here are some examples:
Moderately Foolish Choices (X2) are considerably more hazardous to your well-being. They aren't always glamorously stupid enough to earn you a Darwin award, but they are proven killers. While many such idiotic decisions have the allure of seeming fast, fun, or daring, others are merely poor lifestyle choices like eating too much fast food. After all, heart disease alone is still the number one killer in North America -- meaning that your bad eating habits are even more of a liability than fishing bread out of the toaster with a fork. Each of these behaviours adds three points to your Morbid Stupidity Index. And remember, anything you engage in more than twice per week also has to be multiplied by three:
Extremely Foolish Choices (X3) are utterly reckless. People do them all the time -- possibly even you have -- and by the same virtue we've all shaken our heads in disbelief when some other dumb bastard goes ahead and does it too. Even if such foolhardy behaviour isn't immediately fatal, its many consequences often are. These choices are so stupid that those so inclined would almost be doing the world a favour by going through with them, except that they often take innocent people along with them. As a result, each of these ridiculously dangerous acts that you perform adds ten points to your Morbid Stupidity Index. Here are some examples:
| |
| [back to ask mr. moody] [home] |