> Do you get it yet? Every example you listed is an intuitive correlation. You can address the causative relationship between these, but not with the data you

> Do you get it yet? Every example you listed is an intuitive correlation. You can address the causative relationship between these, but not with the data you provided. All you've done is list a bunch of correlations, and asserted a causative relationship based on shared implicit context. There may be one, but you have not demonstrated it. Let's work an example without implicit context. I tell you: P(A|B) >> P(A) What have you learned about B->A? Literally nothing because the relationship between A and B could be any of: - A causes B (direct causation); - B causes A (reverse causation); - A and B are both caused by C (common causation); - A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation); - There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.