3 ms·

No, he's saying just because they correlate doesn't mean they cause one another (in either direction) at all. But the articles claims otherwise.

• Dove 15y ago
  It means precisely that A causes B, B causes A, C causes both A and B, or the correlation is a statistical fluke. It is intellectually important to be aware of all the options. But "correlation does not imply causation" can be too much of a reflex reaction. In this particular case, it's easy to imagine how a long commute could cause obesity, divorce, and neck pain; it's very hard to imagine how the causality could run the other way, or what a common cause might be. The rule could stand to be taken with a grain of common sense.
  • puredemo 15y ago
    No, it could also mean that types of people who A also tend to B, or types of people who C also tend to A and B, and so on. Correlation != causation.
    • lurker19 15y ago
      It is never wrong to refuse to attempt to have an insight. It is not right either. It is just boring. Correlation is a starting point, not an ending point.
  • praptak 15y ago
    "it's very hard to imagine how the causality could run the other way, or what a common cause might be." On the contrary, a (mind that: possible) common cause is even suggested in the article itself: "Perhaps long-distance commuters tend to be poorer or less educated, both conditions that make divorce more common."