[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1640143938727.png (86.31 KB, 600x600, 1640136389556.png)

 No.656348

correlation doesn't equal causation, i feel most people who say this phrase don't understand it. Also judging from the context i usually hear this phrase i think it might be bullshit and correlation alot of the time does in fact equal causation. what are your thoughts, as this phrase is often used in political discussions.

 No.656350

The stuff you want to describe is a complex system right? Well then if you want to be a moron, take big categories you made up, use these to create an illusion of cause/consequence, then you'll have redditors on your ass saying this shit to you. Easy

 No.656357

Correlation proves the strength of casualty, not its existence.

I can show a correlation of Nobel Prize Winners per capita with the amount of Switzerland chocolate consumed, but I can’t use it to prove its existence. I would have to find an casual link between the two and then use the correlation to back it up.

Your pic was made by a brainley because it fails to even identify that specific fallacy it is justifying, which is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 No.656416

>>656350
>>656357
I don't even understand what you guys are trying to say, why do so many of you talk like your reciting textbooks instead of normal human beings?

If you can't explain something in a way that a 10 year old would understand, you don't really understand it yourself and are just regurgitating someone else's words

 No.656417

File: 1640152150444.jpg (48.68 KB, 576x768, Picture of your mother’s w….JPG)

>>656416

 No.656421

>>656417
Proves my point by not explaining it

 No.656422

>>656421
>I’m being made fun of for how obtuse I am
<Actually proves my point
Fam, if you can’t establish a mechanism that links a and b, either directly or indirectly, it’s not causation. The only people who seem to fail to understand correlation and causation are 13-50 or 41% needledickers.

 No.656423

>>656416
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 No.656424

>>656416
Are we talking to a fucking ten-year-old? No?

 No.656430

>>656416
>>656348
You might be below average intelligence. This isnt meant as an insult.

 No.656436

>>656416
Unintentionally (?) hilarious response.
If you don't understand something, read it several times, use a search enginge to find the things you don't understand, and then ask for clarification if its still confusing.

When you read a lot, you tend to have better reading comprehension so you write as if others do too, which is not often the case.

 No.656439

File: 1640154280657.png (139.92 KB, 219x231, retarding rays.png)

>Also judging from the context i usually hear this phrase i think it might be bullshit and correlation alot of the time does in fact equal causation.
Sometimes events are correlated because one caused the other, yes. Causation is one reason correlation can happen. But just because P implies Q doesn't mean Q implies P. There are other reasons that a correlation can appear. There may be confounding factors you don't know about, like a third variable R that causes both P and Q but that neither P nor Q cause the other.

We like any animal learn most easily by association, meaning we see correlation happens and intuitively assume that the events must be related. At its most basic this is "classical conditioning," what Pavlov discovered with dogs, where he taught them to associate a bell with food and could make them drool by ringing the bell when no food was present. This is a useful way of learning that we evolved very long ago, because it can help us avoid danger or seek out resources a lot of the time. It's "good enough" for most species using it to keep surviving and reproducing, so it has stuck around. It becomes a problem with things like science because it's actually very bad at helping us investigate and understand how things work to hastily assume the most obvious connection we can imagine to explain what happens.

 No.656441

Causation means you understand what the relationship between two correlated things is.
Correlation is not difficult to show. Causation is.

 No.656445

>>656441
>Causation means you understand what the relationship between two correlated things is.
Causation means one thing causes another. Two correlated things may not have a direct or indirect causal link at all. Correlation is sometimes a coincidence.

 No.656453

>>656416
>tfw too intelligent to talk to 10 year olds
Causation need correlation, but not vice versa.

 No.656514

>>656416
>If you can't explain something in a way that a 10 year old would understand, you don't really understand it yourself and are just regurgitating someone else's words
You're not ten, and the anons you responded to already broke it down to a high schooler level. One even gave a literal example, what more do you even want? This is like complaining that a person using math that relies on you knowing at least basic addition and subtraction before hand doesn't understand it, all because he's relying on you already knowing that from fucking elementary school.

 No.656613

>>656445
Yes, understanding the mechanism might be "there is no causal link"

 No.656618

File: 1640180923593-0.jpg (332.04 KB, 1079x718, Screenshot_20211222-074608….jpg)

File: 1640180923593-1.jpg (193.28 KB, 1080x574, Screenshot_20211222-074619….jpg)

File: 1640180923593-2.jpg (307.44 KB, 1080x682, Screenshot_20211222-074640….jpg)

>>656348
Lots of things correlate to each other that doesn't mean that one causes the other. This phrase exist because people are natural pattern seekers and coincidences do exist.

 No.656634

>>656416
Guys come on don't be mean when someone is trying to learn.

 No.656790

>>656348
The phrase is used too often by sucdems. They don't understand the mechanism behind something which is correlated to something else. If a mechanism occurs, (such as poison in a fruit) then the correlation IS likely the causation.

 No.656795

>>656634
There's wanting to learn, then demanding to be spoonfed everything. they're being an obtuse redditor about it.

 No.656844

>>656348
correlation MIGHT indicate causation as in picrel but it MIGHT just indicate coincidence, or causation by a confounding variable

 No.656848

>>656844
and, without further testing, the fruit itself may not be poison but instead a pesticide sprayed on the fruit.

it's why we don't jump to conclusions!

 No.656856

>>656416
>explain something in a way that a 10 year old would understand
When 2 things happen at the same time, it can be coincidence and those 2 things are not related. Sometimes things happening the same time can mean that they are related, but not always. When happenings take place at the same time, that's correlation, when one happening causes the other it's causation.

 No.656885

>>656416
Smartest burger redditor

 No.666829

The canonical form of the saying is "correlation does not imply causation", as in you cannot logically derive causality from coincidence. One could also use "prove" or "show" for more clarity.

Which is to say, why would anyone say "equal" instead? It's not even saying anything meaningful, correlation and causation are different concepts, well, duh, so what? I'm inclined to agree with OP, people who say "equal" must simply not understand the phrase.

 No.666833

>bitcorn go up in the past
>Bitcorn keep going up
>Therefore bitcorn will go up forever

 No.666841

>>656348
It means every single uyghur on earth is a thief-murderer-rapist and they do it because they have nappy hair, wide nostrils, and high melanin.

 No.666843

>>656348
Just because two phenomena coincide in time or in sequence or are consistently observed together (correlate) does not necessarily mean one causes the other. Though it might spell a causal relationship, it is not *necessarily* the case.

 No.666852

That pic strawmans the phrase so hard it's not even funny. Like sure, at a certain point we know a direct cause.

 No.666859

>>656416
Please fam, most of the internet is already like that. Hell, Twitter encourages that kind of thing to an extreme and it's now the norm to dumb down things so much you come off as retarded and people's attention spans are increasingly crippled.

 No.666864

>>666852
And even if there isn't a provable causal relation, correlation is nevertheless a notable observation worthy of consideration and discussion in its own right. To use this stock phrase as a means to dismiss an argument is intellectually lazy. It's a way to sound smart without providing an analysis or argument. As someone once said, "correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."

 No.667212

>>666833
bitcoin will go up because dollar is going to zero

 No.667218

>>667212
There's another example
>Inflation go up
>Bitcorn go up
>Therefore bitcorn must be the alternative to fiat
You know as opposed to getting replaced by another government back currency, which has been historically the case.

 No.667219

>>666864
Are you part of the adherents of 13-50 and/or 41%

 No.667247

Absolute brainlette made that image. It means that two things happening together doesn't always mean one caused the other. It could be other way around that 2 caused 1 rather than 1 cause 2 or an unfactored other that is the cause of the other two things or many factors may contribute and the one being focused on is the smallest factor. Do you think Nicholas Cage is causing people to accidentally drown in pools?
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations


Unique IPs: 28
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /