> Correlation isn’t causation, of course: there may be some other common factor at play making coffee-drinkers healthier. Is it worth reading past this? There

> Correlation isn’t causation, of course: there may be some other common factor at play making coffee-drinkers healthier. Is it worth reading past this? There may be some other factor at play, making…? How do you recognize the first part and then say the second part? It could just as well be “healthier people who don’t succumb to negative side effects of substance whatever have more bandwidth to think deeply about things.” I’m not positing that it is, just that when you have a “correlation” like this, you can posit all kinds of scenarios that lead to it (e.g. firemen start fires). So I admit, I didn’t read the rest of the article. Because it name drops some buzz wordy things and then messes with them. Why even lead in with this? Just say the point. So I’m asking fello more patient HNers, does it go better? Just an author trying to warm to the real pony and I should persevere?