/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16155914]

>Correlation is not a causation!!

Why has this phrase become popular among normies? I’ve heard this like 50 times during the last semester. Are there any other phrases that will become popular like this?

[Anonymous No.16155923]

>>16155914
Because retards think correlation is causation.

[Anonymous No.16155931]

Read Lenin on sloganism. They aren't understanding. They are parroting an easily remembered slogan. Peak midwitry.

[Anonymous No.16155935]

>>16155914
It’s been a reddit default for like 8 years. People think it’s really profound

[Anonymous No.16155948]

>>16155914
because retards think that correlation either does not imply causation or that it does in a black and white manner.

it should be correlation CAN imply causation instead of does or doesnt. depends on context and if you think some leaps in logic are warranted in a situation or not.

[Anonymous No.16155955]

Its an easy way to dismiss things a person doesn't want to acknowledge. Opinions are based in preference rather than reason.

[Anonymous No.16155959]

>>16155948
This. Unless the correlation is utterly retarded, it's always worth a look, but under no circumstances should it be used as evidence of any claim.

[Anonymous No.16155960]

>>16155955
Where does preference come from?

[Anonymous No.16155973]

>>16155960
I dont know

[Anonymous No.16155979]

>>16155973
Where do you think preference comes from, then?

[Anonymous No.16155982]

>>16155914
>correlation is not a causation!!
>nutritional epidemiology is valid!!

I hate these people.

[Anonymous No.16155987]

>Do you have a source on that?

>Source?

>A source. I need a source.

>Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

>No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

>You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

>Do you have a degree in that field?

>A college degree? In that field?

>Then your arguments are invalid.

>No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

>Correlation does not equal causation.

>CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

>You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

>Nope, still haven't.

>I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron

[Anonymous No.16155988]

>>16155914
The way it's phrased is always a dead giveaway that whoever spouts this dumb phrase does not understand the idea behind it. "Correlation does not equal / is not causation" is obviously stupid. Not shit they are not identical. "Correlation does not imply causation" is better, but it's still too much of a mental shorthand and does not mean what people think it means, it only applies to pirates and global warming type of situations.

[Anonymous No.16155991]

>>16155914
>hospitals have more sick people than average
>therefore, hospitals give people illnesses

[Anonymous No.16155995]

I love when retard say this when in referencing a controlled experiment with a control lmao.

[Anonymous No.16156003]

>>16155991
>hospitals give people illnesses
They do.

[Anonymous No.16156005]

>>16155991
They do, though, just not in the way that's implied. Not even in a semantic sense of diagnosis, loads of people get hospital-specific illnesses. Your example speaks to why nuance like >>16155948 will always trump dogmatic sloganism.

[Anonymous No.16156017]

>>16155914
This phrase has been a cliche for decades, but it's important. But apply it to white school shooter statistics and faggot redditors lose their minds.

[Anonymous No.16156021]

>>16155987
I admire the implications of the thread of commonality between these frequently seen replies, however asking for a source on a definitive claim you have a hard time believing is common sense. Everything past that fits though.

[Anonymous No.16156028]

>>16155979
Social pressures or preconceived notions. Identities one wants to align with. Maybe out of aesthetic preference or some moral teaching learned as a child. I know from my experience I've tried to rationalize or deny perfectly valid arguments against some idea I attatched myself to.

[Anonymous No.16156034]

>>16155987
>>You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence
This is actually based though

[Anonymous No.16156043]

>>16155948
"A does not imply B" is equivalent to "It's possible to have A without B". What is actually meant in "correlation does not imply causation" is "it's not necessarily A causing B, but it might be B causing A, or C causing both A and B", not "there is no causal relationship between A and B", though you can easily find correlations like that too. So this soundbite is a failure of basic logic by authors of undergrad stats textbooks inherited by psych majors.

[Anonymous No.16156052]

>>16156034
I think you misunderstand his point anon. It's a list of shit people say to deny the truth.

[Anonymous No.16156063]

>>16156052
Yeah I've watched Destiny debate.

[Anonymous No.16156070]

>>16156043
agreed, but the slogan usually is used in a way to diffuse possible assertions of causation even though by definition it dose not rule it out.

[Anonymous No.16156075]

>>16156021

[Anonymous No.16156077]

>visible heuristics are invalid
Come on guys, the only time anyone ever says this is in reference to god or nigger behavior

[Anonymous No.16156090]

>>16156070
you must frequent forums populated by even greater retards than I'm used to, I see it more frequently used to question the nature / direction of the perceived causality

[Anonymous No.16156091]

>>16155991
Read Taleb

[Anonymous No.16156093]

>>16156077
>visible heuristics
isn't even a term you cumtard

[Anonymous No.16156116]

>>16156090
im talking mostly irl. however, i think its completely under since you would really only use the phrase if causation was an implicit possibility in a conversation and someone wanted to remind another that it is not the only possibility. i think the phrase is mostly a casualty of when it is most likely to be invoked.

[Anonymous No.16156128]

>>16155914
I've always considered simply reaching out to smack them when they say this only to ask them why I did it.

[Anonymous No.16156140]

>>16155923
this
its such a common mistake that the rebuttal is going to be overused.
if you ever take the LSAT, it requires you to know a lot of simple logical rules like that. correlation does not guarantee causation. discrediting a speaker doesn't discredit what he says. things like that. but what's amazing is how badly people do. like, there are online communities full of people bitching that the Logical Reasoning questions are impossible. all they have to do is pretend to think logically for 35 minutes, and they cant do it

[Anonymous No.16156160]

>>16156091
read sextus empiricus

[Anonymous No.16156213]

>>16156160
read dr. seuss

[Anonymous No.16156321]

>>16156213
read socrates

[Anonymous No.16156375]

>>16156321
read Mathew Stover's Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: The Novelization

[Anonymous No.16156507]

>>16155914
I find it so funny how popular that phrase is yet no one who uses it understands how to run a significance test

[Anonymous No.16156537]

>>16155914
pattern recognition isn't useful to people that can't discriminate the nature of the pattern, this is also why AI has trouble with captchas despite being very efficient with patterns

NPC indeed

[Anonymous No.16156555]

>>16155988
>it only applies to pirates and global warming type of situations.
No, it applies generally.

[Anonymous No.16156594]

>>16156375
Read my diary desu

[Anonymous No.16156766]

Most of the shit 'learned' people say is like this. The NPCishness of it causes me to start derealising if I'm not careful. Acquainting myself with the academic environment has crushed my hope and kindness.

[Anonymous No.16156770]

>>16156555
way to waste a perfectly good set of trips just to jump in and do a dumb take, see >>16156043
and shut up

[Anonymous No.16157027]

>>16155914
The reason to care is that correlation is unstable. Two things may correlate, but that correlation could break down at any time, for reasons you won't understand. But then it's better to say, correlation doesn't mean you have any idea what's going on.

[Anonymous No.16157045]

>>16157027
>heh, those normies amirite
this entire thread is full of seething pseuds

[Anonymous No.16157919]

>>16155914

Same as with people saying stuff like ''You cannot generalize'' ''That's racist'' ''That's ignorant''
Retards thinking they are smarter than everyone, while refusing to acknowledge there might be a lot more depth, and nouance to mainstream topics which might hold very harsh truth we currently have no solutions for.

(Such as the differences in IQ and how much of an impact this actually has in people's lives)

[Anonymous No.16158067]

>>16155988
Correlation between two events is evidence of causation, but the causation may not be the simple direct kind from one to the other. E.g., there could be a common cause, etc.

[Anonymous No.16158079]

>>16157919
How has low IQ impacted your life?

[Anonymous No.16158091]

Real philosophers know that you can never infer causation, even with a randomized control trial.
Also how is this related to literature?

[Anonymous No.16158164]

It's a great way of never having to accept something you don't already believe to be true.

[Anonymous No.16158179]

>>16155923
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.16158198]

Causation always implies correlation.

[Anonymous No.16158209]

>>16158179
Every tranny that has ever lived breaths air.
What does that say about you?

[Anonymous No.16158210]

>>16155914
Because normies have trouble differentiating correlation from causation. Be glad they're holding each other accountable

[Anonymous No.16158242]

Correlation always implies relation, relation always implies shared causal chain somewhere up or down the line.
As in.
>Real correlation always implies direct or indirect causation.

[Anonymous No.16158254]

If a correlation is shown to have no causal relation, then it never was a correlation.
>Correlation doesn't mean correlation.

[Anonymous No.16158265]

There's only correlation if there's causation.

[Anonymous No.16158310]

dude every time I smoke some dank bud I get high, but correlation isnt causation so its not the bud thats causing me to get high
I wonder what it is?

[Anonymous No.16158348]

>defendant, we found you in the bedroom of your worst enemy with a smoking gun which was just used to shot him dead. what can you say in your defense?
>correlation is not causation!
>accepted, you are free now.

[Anonymous No.16158360]

wtf, /lit/ has been invaded by low iq people

[Anonymous No.16158367]

>>16155923
>he doesn’t know about metaphorical truths

[Anonymous No.16158372]

>>16158367
Is it when correlation is a fox and causation is a lion?

[Anonymous No.16158406]

>>16158310
>>16158348
Literal retards.

[Anonymous No.16158430]

>>16158310
It's the other way around. Your getting high is what causes you to smoke weed. If you didn't smoke weed, you would get high anyway. But your body, knowing that you will get high in a few minutes, implants in you a desire to smoke some weed before the high starts. This is why every time you smoke weed you feel high. You think the smoking is the thing causing you to become high, but that's only because the smoking temporally precedes your experience of getting high. In reality, your highness causes you to smoke.

[Anonymous No.16158468]

argument for most is conflict, equivalent to people bashing each other with rocks

it is rarely towards a higher purpose

[Anonymous No.16158482]

>>16158406
>Literal
leave homo

[Anonymous No.16158739]

>>16158482
You are literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.16158963]

>>16156005
>Your example speaks to why nuance like >>16155948 will always trump dogmatic sloganism.
Not that guy, but any books on this? I mean the nuanced approach being better than the black and white one, especially with logic.

[Anonymous No.16159471]

>>16155991
there are more cancer cases where there are more doctors
therefore doctors cause cancer

[Anonymous No.16159496]

probably because a lot of scientist made bogus studies by thinking correlation does imply causation
and now they're trying to correct those mistakes

[Anonymous No.16159533]

Because these NPCs argue in bad faith and have coopted correlation does not equal causation as a thought terminating cliché so they shut down any dialogue that might cause them to come to uncomfortable conclusions.
They behave exactly like this >>16155987.

[Anonymous No.16159566]

>>16159533
This.

[Anonymous No.16159585]

>>16155914
Im pretty certain that one of the first things taught in any psych-101 class is that rule.

[Anonymous No.16159957]

>>16155914
>>16155923
>>16159533
Retards who use this phrase don't know that correlation is usually sufficient to make an informed decision without needing to know the causal links

[Anonymous No.16160131]

>>16159957
This. Just because you can find correlation between two occurrences and find that they aren't in common doesn't mean it's not typical that one incident precedes the occurrence of another. In fact everything that ever happened was preceded by a precipitating event or else quantum physics is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16160221]

>>16159957
>correlation is usually sufficient to make an informed decision without needing to know the causal links
>usually
Imagine being this dumb.

[Anonymous No.16160535]

>>16155979
Personally, I think it comes from your emotions. If it makes you feel good then you develop a preference for an opinion that reinforces positive feelings. There are other reasons, sure, but emotions play a huge part in thought processing.

[Anonymous No.16161541]

>>16155914
retards don't know that correlation is linearly scaling with causality, and therefore there are degrees of variance that must be understood. 5% correlation is usually pretty minor, but if something has 50% correlation it is a massive factor and cannot be ignored. Normies have very poor understanding of this, and due to this usually have a poor understanding of risk assessment as well.