5 ms·
It's locked up behind a paywall, but people confuse "correlation" with "equivalence." For this to be a catch-22, you'd need an amazingly strong correlation. Al
by murgindrag 6y ago
It's locked up behind a paywall, but people confuse "correlation" with "equivalence." For this to be a catch-22, you'd need an amazingly strong correlation.
Also, most psychology results fail to replicate. A single paper has about a 60-70% chance of being nonsense, probably more.
- Der_Einzige 6y agoEspecially because they used PCA of all things to figure out what these personality traits actually are.
- meekmind 6y agoI'm aware of the replication crisis and that correlation does not equal causation. Are you aware of any research that contradicts the original statements?
- murgindrag 6y agoI think your statement confuses who has the burden of proof when proposing a new theory (or just how sorry the state of science is).
- meekmind 6y agoI'm a commenter on HN who made a comment for the sake of discussion, not a researcher proposing a paper. You avoided the comment entirely, cited the replication crisis and the old hat "correlation != causation" argument when my comment didn't even have that problem.