7 ms·
> Yes, and it is clearly describing the possibility it shows up No. It is clearly describing the opposite: the possibility that the underlying situation shows
by torstenvl 5y ago
> Yes, and it is clearly describing the possibility it shows up
No. It is clearly describing the opposite: the possibility that the underlying situation shows an actually weaker, non-existent, or even inverse correlation.
The effect shows up when there's actually a negative correlation. It shows up when there's no correlation. It shows up when the actual correlation is a positive one.
So long as there's a trade-off of perceived positive qualities in a competitive market, it always shows up.
- perl4ever 5y ago>So long as there's a trade-off of perceived positive qualities in a competitive market, it always shows up. >The effect shows up when there's actually a negative correlation. It shows up when there's no correlation. It shows up when the actual correlation is a positive one. By "the effect" do you mean there is always an apparent negative correlation? Or are you including an effect that merely weakens a positive one? Do you qualify your statements with the two events being independent?
- torstenvl 5y agoThere is always an apparent negative correlation. I am struggling to understand why people find this to be so difficult. It's inherent in the idea of "trade-off" that if one is high the other is low and vice versa, i.e., a negative correlation.
- perl4ever 5y agoI'm not at the level of evaluating whether what you say is correct. It's not "difficult", because I'm not even trying. I understand that I don't understand. I remain at the level of believing you are making a stronger claim with fewer qualifications or assumptions than is on the Wikipedia page that I was directed to.