3 ms·
Reporting on stock etc markets is so rife with "Honey, I Shrunk the Scale!" that it's the norm. And the suicide rate vs science and technology spending thing i
by mirimir 8y ago
Reporting on stock etc markets is so rife with "Honey, I Shrunk the Scale!" that it's the norm.
And the suicide rate vs science and technology spending thing is a classic example of correlation <> causation. In this case, I suspect that they're both ~population.[0]
0) http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
- benj111 8y agoI didn't find anything particularly wrong with that graph (suicide rate v science)? Sure if you use that data to say there is causation then that's wrong, but there isn't anything wrong with the display of data.
- mirimir 8y agoTFA made the point that just showing the data that way leads people to think there's causation.
- benj111 8y agoAnd in just the same way that you shouldn't believe a article saying there's causation and just showing this graph as evidence. Then we shouldn't believe this article when they make a statement like that. Anyway it doesn't even make sense, causation means X causes Y, the very next question is which causes which? The graph has nothing to say on that. All the graph implies is that there is a correlation, which isn't controversial (scientifically, not socially speaking).
- mirimir 8y agoYou and I, and most HN readers, are a lot better at making those sorts of distinctions than the norm. And correlation between science spending and suicide? I'd say that they both correlate to population, so their relationship is just confounding. But then, I'm no statistician.