How would you define not 3rd world?

You’ve been for just three years on Reddit

How do you define “major country”?

The issue is lack of isonomical enforcement

Paid? That still happens! It's the whole point of HOAs!

I don't think they try to draw causal nexus in this study (which is fine, it's not in the scope of a study like this to explain everything).

There are many potentially sound hypotheses one could make e.g. people who live near lots of artificial lights also likely live in urban centers and might work longer and thus have less time to exercise or eat healthy.

Also could be poorer, etc.

There is a tiny negative correlation that is extremely unlikely to be the outcome of random noise for this sample size.

It's absurd how much we rely on methods and substances that we understand very little of to produce the food we eat and sell to others.

Agrarian reform should be at the forefront of political debate, not mostly irrelevant distractions such as children indoctrination or whatever the current buzz is

Paleo diet cultists in shambles

gluten is delicious

Whole gran corn or wheat is not bad for you as long as you're minding your macros

I draw the line at metazoa, everything else is fair game

Bacteria are not animals no

> Sounds like if the animal exploitation component is removed you’d be ok with consuming them?

Sure! As long as no part of the producing process involves harming or using animals in any way

I don't care about fat, but as a vegan this is super cool

Resources are limited and this has already been studied before, it is entirely wasteful.

It is precisely and exactly why I respect psychology as a field of scholarly work that I am calling this bad psychology

Freud at least had the excuse of working in a very immature field, these authors on the other hand...

This is a waste of resources that could've been spent somewhere actually productive for advancing the frontier of human psychological knowledge

It’s bad psychology

Yes, but there are other things to fix, such as better defining "healthier" (in what timeframe?), and better defining "peers" . Presumably, if you change to exceptionally well-paid, peers would be everyone else that gets paid.

"People who make more money usually present better overall health indicators" doesn't make for a very striking headline, though.

For practical purposes, it is essentially impracticable to test a hypothesis such as this without narrowing down the definitions of these words into smaller parts that are better represented by other words (in the case of this study, "exceptionally well paid" vs. successful). Too many proxies for this to mean anything.

> It's more to do with actually defining "exceptionally successful" at a "career" level and then defining "healthier".

> "Exceptionally successful people are wrecked by their success"

Also a bad hypothesis for the very same reasons

It's more to do with actually defining "exceptionally successful" at a "career" level and then defining "healthier".

> People with exceptionally successful careers tend to be healthier than their less successful peers

Is a terrible hypothesis for many reasons