6 ms·

Really, saying engineers are more prone to terrorism. . . Talk about misunderstanding causation and correlation. I don't see people committing violent acts of

by MollyR 11y ago

Really, saying engineers are more prone to terrorism. . . Talk about misunderstanding causation and correlation. I don't see people committing violent acts of terrorism in the name of engineering.

WalterSear 11y ago
The article discusses underlying causes of the correlation.
jameskilton 11y ago
You've missed the point of the article. The article is talking about how engineers have the mind-set that can more easily lead someone to joining a terrorist organization than other field mindsets. It has nothing at all to do with "terrorism in the name of engineering". Whether it's a correlation =/= causation mishap, given the author's profession and that it's a full book many years in the making, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
MollyR 11y ago
In reference to some of the comments below me. This article seems eerily similar to this http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chine... I stand by my early comment as well. As I don't think over representation of engineers in terrorist groups suggests causation. It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates(not that I think it does).
- richmarr 11y ago
  > ... It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates (not that I think it does). There are plenty of problems in science, but I'm reasonably confident that a researcher at Oxford, and his co-author, an associate professor, probably understand the relationship between correlation and causation. From the abstract of their paper in the European Journal of Sociology they hypothesised and then tested multiple hypotheses before arguing for a likely cause.
  - MollyR 11y ago
    I am not a fan of an appeal to authority, because I've seen people do worse in biomedical research. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 but I haven't read the original paper either. So here is a link to the abstract for curious people. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6607832 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... I can't actually find the full article. So I'm going to refrain from commenting on it.
    - richmarr 11y ago
      According to abstract of their paper, these two researchers hypothesised and then tested several possible explanations of the observed correlation. That fact alone disproves your claim that they mistook correlation for causation. The article also discusses a third factor.
      - MollyR 11y ago
        If you get me the actual paper, I might change my mind. Without more information from the actual whole paper, I'm not going to update my reasoning. I've seen it numerous times in psychology and sociological papers. I've even seen biologists mistake correlation and causation in their own experiment. As being part of the scientific community, I was forced to read tons and tons of retraction papers by my PI (principal investigator).So again I'm holding out until I get the actual paper, and I standby my skepticism.
        richmarr 11y ago
        Sorry, unless I'm missing something your reasoning is faulty. You don't need to read the paper to see that their method involved looking and testing hidden variables, disproving your assertion that they mistook correlation for causation. You may disagree with their conclusion, but their method disproves your accusation.
        11y ago

by MollyR 11y ago

Really, saying engineers are more prone to terrorism. . . Talk about misunderstanding causation and correlation. I don't see people committing violent acts of terrorism in the name of engineering.

WalterSear 11y ago

The article discusses underlying causes of the correlation.

jameskilton 11y ago

You've missed the point of the article. The article is talking about how engineers have the mind-set that can more easily lead someone to joining a terrorist organization than other field mindsets. It has nothing at all to do with "terrorism in the name of engineering". Whether it's a correlation =/= causation mishap, given the author's profession and that it's a full book many years in the making, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

MollyR 11y ago

In reference to some of the comments below me. This article seems eerily similar to this http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chine... I stand by my early comment as well. As I don't think over representation of engineers in terrorist groups suggests causation. It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates(not that I think it does).

richmarr 11y ago
> ... It can easy be attributed to another hidden variable such as the same culture that creates more engineers also creates more terrorist candidates (not that I think it does). There are plenty of problems in science, but I'm reasonably confident that a researcher at Oxford, and his co-author, an associate professor, probably understand the relationship between correlation and causation. From the abstract of their paper in the European Journal of Sociology they hypothesised and then tested multiple hypotheses before arguing for a likely cause.
- MollyR 11y ago
  I am not a fan of an appeal to authority, because I've seen people do worse in biomedical research. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30534674 but I haven't read the original paper either. So here is a link to the abstract for curious people. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6607832 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... I can't actually find the full article. So I'm going to refrain from commenting on it.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    According to abstract of their paper, these two researchers hypothesised and then tested several possible explanations of the observed correlation. That fact alone disproves your claim that they mistook correlation for causation. The article also discusses a third factor.
    - MollyR 11y ago
      If you get me the actual paper, I might change my mind. Without more information from the actual whole paper, I'm not going to update my reasoning. I've seen it numerous times in psychology and sociological papers. I've even seen biologists mistake correlation and causation in their own experiment. As being part of the scientific community, I was forced to read tons and tons of retraction papers by my PI (principal investigator).So again I'm holding out until I get the actual paper, and I standby my skepticism.
      - richmarr 11y ago
        Sorry, unless I'm missing something your reasoning is faulty. You don't need to read the paper to see that their method involved looking and testing hidden variables, disproving your assertion that they mistook correlation for causation. You may disagree with their conclusion, but their method disproves your accusation.
        11y ago