5 ms·

Number people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=3

Number people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=359 http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=359

tyfon 9y ago
I was about to say I can probably correlate the number of births in Denmark to the number of storks entering the country or something. Regarding the study I think both the LSD and being environmentally friendly are the result of certain personality traits, some of which I certainly possess.
- arjie 9y ago
  Other HN readers, you may accept the following excerpt from the link to determine whether your fellow commenters read more than the headline before they comment: > However, the relationship between taking psychedelics and being green is only a correlation and the eco-friendly behaviors in the study were all self-reported. This begs the question: Are people who have environmental concerns just more likely to be open to trying drugs? > The researchers say this isn’t the case because people who are into environmental issues are not more likely to indulge in other drugs, whether it's tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, or recreational illegal substances. There was also no hint that certain personality types are drawn towards both psychedelics and nature. Doubtless your fellow commenters will say the explanations are inadequate. But was that the impression of the article that they wanted you to have in their original comments? That the question was asked and inadequately answered? I leave this to you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
monktastic1 9y ago
Edited, since my original post was not helpful: If you have a ton of random survey data, you might indeed find two variables which correlate on ten data points. On the other hand, it is much less likely that you accidentally design a study with two variables, and find a similarly strong correlation across 1487 data points. This is particularly true when there is already evidence that this correlation should hold.
- _jal 9y ago
  I theorize that far more people would drown themselves after a John Travolta movie than ever would after a Nic Cage flick.
ekianjo 9y ago
Yeah, it's always easy to find completely nonsensical correlations. You need to have an actual explanation why the one may correlate to the other, and ideally test it in some way or another (or through a different observational study at least) to ensure this is not just noise in the data.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Out of context "correlation is not causation" comments correlate with HN readership. The correlation decreases for readers that have done research or at least bother to read the article.
- fhood 9y ago
  Fair, but the headline on this one is offensively inane.
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    I agree but for that blame the journalist, not the scientific validity of the paper.
    - criley2 9y ago
      I disagree, journalists write articles, editors write headlines. Show me a journalist who writes their own headlines, and I'll show you a freelancer who writes for their own publication...
    - SteveGerencser 9y ago
      No, blame Google and Facebook for forcing everyone to resort to clickbait titles in an effort to get traffic to their websites.
      - ritarong 9y ago
        In a way it is a race to the bottom when it comes to quality in articles
  - godelski 9y ago
    It is from IFLS. All headlines there are offensively inane. And I'm honestly surprised IFLS is on the front page of HN.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
The article mentions that it is just a correlation, and that further research would be necessary to discover a link. This soapbox has a purpose, but you're stepping on it to yell at responsible science journalism. Should no stories be published until further research has been done? What should they present to get money to do more research?
- jmull 9y ago
  The article spends the first half implying causation, briefly admits this study does not address that, and then resumes suggesting that causation exists. I hope that's not considered responsible science journalism. Personally, I don't conclude anything from this. The tone and overreaching conclusions in the study abstract and in the quotes of the study's conclusion make me think the study's authors were looking for a specific answer, which they found. It's not hard to pull what you're looking for out of nothing using statistics, especially on your own data. In fact, it's hard NOT to do.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >The article spends the first half implying causation, briefly admits this study does not address that, and then resumes suggesting that causation exists. It starts talking about "common anecdotes," then talk about the self reporting survey this is based on. I can't see that as implying causation, and I don't know what more can be expected of science journalism. The field has to make it into a story, that's what differentiates it from scientific journals. The abstract also states how inconclusive this result is, that the full paper addresses the limitations and that this data should be used with other evidence. The problems I see are the general need to find some link to get published, and they are at least straightforward about the strength of their data.
anythingnonidin 9y ago
Yes, they address this: > Although correlational in nature, results suggest that lifetime experience with psychedelics in particular may indeed contribute to people’s pro-environmental behavior by changing their self-construal in terms of an incorporation of the natural world, regardless of core personality traits or general propensity to consume mind-altering substances. and > Rather than psychedelics promoting nature relatedness, for example, it could be that people who feel more connected to nature are more likely to consume psychedelic drugs. But the researchers do not beleive that this is the case. > “As the relationship we found remained significant after controlling for demographic variables and personality traits such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, or political attitudes, it is unlikely that the association we found can be entirely explained by a collection of personality traits stereotypically associated with psychedelic users (e.g. being of the ‘hippie’ type).” from this interview with them: http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/study-suggests-psychedelics-promote-eco-friendly-behaviors-altering-relationship-nature-49592 http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/study-suggests-psychedelics-p... Also note that the paper/title say 'predicts' not causes, which is accurate, it's a correlation and X being true does predict Y being true, but we don't know if X causes Y, even if the authors suspect that it might.
contingencies 9y ago
Heh. Nicolas Cage shouted us an evening of drinks in Bangkok once. Nice fellow, really. Much less rah-rah than most of the Hollywood types, and a genuinely friendly fellow.

tyfon 9y ago

I was about to say I can probably correlate the number of births in Denmark to the number of storks entering the country or something. Regarding the study I think both the LSD and being environmentally friendly are the result of certain personality traits, some of which I certainly possess.

arjie 9y ago
Other HN readers, you may accept the following excerpt from the link to determine whether your fellow commenters read more than the headline before they comment: > However, the relationship between taking psychedelics and being green is only a correlation and the eco-friendly behaviors in the study were all self-reported. This begs the question: Are people who have environmental concerns just more likely to be open to trying drugs? > The researchers say this isn’t the case because people who are into environmental issues are not more likely to indulge in other drugs, whether it's tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, or recreational illegal substances. There was also no hint that certain personality types are drawn towards both psychedelics and nature. Doubtless your fellow commenters will say the explanations are inadequate. But was that the impression of the article that they wanted you to have in their original comments? That the question was asked and inadequately answered? I leave this to you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

monktastic1 9y ago

Edited, since my original post was not helpful: If you have a ton of random survey data, you might indeed find two variables which correlate on ten data points. On the other hand, it is much less likely that you accidentally design a study with two variables, and find a similarly strong correlation across 1487 data points. This is particularly true when there is already evidence that this correlation should hold.

_jal 9y ago
I theorize that far more people would drown themselves after a John Travolta movie than ever would after a Nic Cage flick.

ekianjo 9y ago

Yeah, it's always easy to find completely nonsensical correlations. You need to have an actual explanation why the one may correlate to the other, and ideally test it in some way or another (or through a different observational study at least) to ensure this is not just noise in the data.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

Out of context "correlation is not causation" comments correlate with HN readership. The correlation decreases for readers that have done research or at least bother to read the article.

fhood 9y ago
Fair, but the headline on this one is offensively inane.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  I agree but for that blame the journalist, not the scientific validity of the paper.
  - criley2 9y ago
    I disagree, journalists write articles, editors write headlines. Show me a journalist who writes their own headlines, and I'll show you a freelancer who writes for their own publication...
  - SteveGerencser 9y ago
    No, blame Google and Facebook for forcing everyone to resort to clickbait titles in an effort to get traffic to their websites.
    - ritarong 9y ago
      In a way it is a race to the bottom when it comes to quality in articles
- godelski 9y ago
  It is from IFLS. All headlines there are offensively inane. And I'm honestly surprised IFLS is on the front page of HN.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

The article mentions that it is just a correlation, and that further research would be necessary to discover a link. This soapbox has a purpose, but you're stepping on it to yell at responsible science journalism. Should no stories be published until further research has been done? What should they present to get money to do more research?

jmull 9y ago
The article spends the first half implying causation, briefly admits this study does not address that, and then resumes suggesting that causation exists. I hope that's not considered responsible science journalism. Personally, I don't conclude anything from this. The tone and overreaching conclusions in the study abstract and in the quotes of the study's conclusion make me think the study's authors were looking for a specific answer, which they found. It's not hard to pull what you're looking for out of nothing using statistics, especially on your own data. In fact, it's hard NOT to do.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >The article spends the first half implying causation, briefly admits this study does not address that, and then resumes suggesting that causation exists. It starts talking about "common anecdotes," then talk about the self reporting survey this is based on. I can't see that as implying causation, and I don't know what more can be expected of science journalism. The field has to make it into a story, that's what differentiates it from scientific journals. The abstract also states how inconclusive this result is, that the full paper addresses the limitations and that this data should be used with other evidence. The problems I see are the general need to find some link to get published, and they are at least straightforward about the strength of their data.

anythingnonidin 9y ago

Yes, they address this: > Although correlational in nature, results suggest that lifetime experience with psychedelics in particular may indeed contribute to people’s pro-environmental behavior by changing their self-construal in terms of an incorporation of the natural world, regardless of core personality traits or general propensity to consume mind-altering substances. and > Rather than psychedelics promoting nature relatedness, for example, it could be that people who feel more connected to nature are more likely to consume psychedelic drugs. But the researchers do not beleive that this is the case. > “As the relationship we found remained significant after controlling for demographic variables and personality traits such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, or political attitudes, it is unlikely that the association we found can be entirely explained by a collection of personality traits stereotypically associated with psychedelic users (e.g. being of the ‘hippie’ type).” from this interview with them: http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/study-suggests-psychedelics-promote-eco-friendly-behaviors-altering-relationship-nature-49592 http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/study-suggests-psychedelics-p... Also note that the paper/title say 'predicts' not causes, which is accurate, it's a correlation and X being true does predict Y being true, but we don't know if X causes Y, even if the authors suspect that it might.

contingencies 9y ago

Heh. Nicolas Cage shouted us an evening of drinks in Bangkok once. Nice fellow, really. Much less rah-rah than most of the Hollywood types, and a genuinely friendly fellow.