4 ms·

These two mean exactly the same thing, no? Does anyone read "linked" and infer a direction of causality? To use the famous example, there's nothing wrong with t

These two mean exactly the same thing, no? Does anyone read "linked" and infer a direction of causality? To use the famous example, there's nothing wrong with the phrase "Rain linked with wet streets"

tpoacher 5y ago
Absolutely it infers a direction of causality; unless carefully worded to avoid that implication. That's just how human perception works. Simply saying 'linked' instead of 'causes' isn't enough to dispel the hallucination, and people are typically aware of this when they write such titles. But even putting causality aside, it also implies something about the direction of the 'join', to use a database term; one is like a left join, the other is like a right join (well, a left join with the order of joined tables reversed). 'Belief of past Covid linked with long covid symptoms' implies that belief of past covid may also be linked to other things, but one of those is long covid symptoms. The visual created is that the belief of past covid may be linked to all sorts of things, one of which is exhibiting long covid symptoms. Those wacky 'past covid believers' are at it again! 'Long covid symptoms linked with belief of covid' implies that long covid symptoms may also be linked to other things, but one of those is belief of past covid. The visual created is that having long covid symptoms may be linked to all sorts of things, one of which is believing you must have had covid in the past causing them. Quite a reasonable assumption. Therefore the order not only matters in a perceived 'implies causal direction' sense, but also in which direction you place the one-to-many emphasis on.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > Simply saying 'linked' instead of 'causes' isn't enough to dispel the hallucination, and people are typically aware of this when they write such titles. I suppose it's possible that I have a blind spot here due to basic statistical literacy, which definitely isn't true of the general audience for these articles. (Note that I'm not implying this is true of you; your complaint about how the general public interprets the article is independent of your own interpretation of it). ---- Tangentially, if we take for granted your claim that the article implies that the belief caused the reporting of long covid symptoms: why do you think the article is more consistent with the other direction of causality? Symptoms like cognitive problems, soreness, and fatigue can be devilishly hard to pin down as pathological, which is why CFS has been so tricky a field for so long. I speak from experience: I've recently started working with an immunologist/CFS specialist after decades of these symptoms, and I'm constantly double-checking my reporting of symptoms against plausible alternative explanations, including psychosomatic and non-pathological causes.
  - tpoacher 5y ago
    > why do you think the article is more consistent with the other direction of causality? Ah, the authors actually make their intended direction clear towards the end of the abstract: > The results “suggest that physical symptoms persisting 10 to 12 months after the COVID-19 pandemic first wave may be associated more with the belief in having experienced COVID-19 infection than with actually being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” the authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

tpoacher 5y ago

Absolutely it infers a direction of causality; unless carefully worded to avoid that implication. That's just how human perception works. Simply saying 'linked' instead of 'causes' isn't enough to dispel the hallucination, and people are typically aware of this when they write such titles. But even putting causality aside, it also implies something about the direction of the 'join', to use a database term; one is like a left join, the other is like a right join (well, a left join with the order of joined tables reversed). 'Belief of past Covid linked with long covid symptoms' implies that belief of past covid may also be linked to other things, but one of those is long covid symptoms. The visual created is that the belief of past covid may be linked to all sorts of things, one of which is exhibiting long covid symptoms. Those wacky 'past covid believers' are at it again! 'Long covid symptoms linked with belief of covid' implies that long covid symptoms may also be linked to other things, but one of those is belief of past covid. The visual created is that having long covid symptoms may be linked to all sorts of things, one of which is believing you must have had covid in the past causing them. Quite a reasonable assumption. Therefore the order not only matters in a perceived 'implies causal direction' sense, but also in which direction you place the one-to-many emphasis on.

wutbrodo 5y ago
> Simply saying 'linked' instead of 'causes' isn't enough to dispel the hallucination, and people are typically aware of this when they write such titles. I suppose it's possible that I have a blind spot here due to basic statistical literacy, which definitely isn't true of the general audience for these articles. (Note that I'm not implying this is true of you; your complaint about how the general public interprets the article is independent of your own interpretation of it). ---- Tangentially, if we take for granted your claim that the article implies that the belief caused the reporting of long covid symptoms: why do you think the article is more consistent with the other direction of causality? Symptoms like cognitive problems, soreness, and fatigue can be devilishly hard to pin down as pathological, which is why CFS has been so tricky a field for so long. I speak from experience: I've recently started working with an immunologist/CFS specialist after decades of these symptoms, and I'm constantly double-checking my reporting of symptoms against plausible alternative explanations, including psychosomatic and non-pathological causes.
- tpoacher 5y ago
  > why do you think the article is more consistent with the other direction of causality? Ah, the authors actually make their intended direction clear towards the end of the abstract: > The results “suggest that physical symptoms persisting 10 to 12 months after the COVID-19 pandemic first wave may be associated more with the belief in having experienced COVID-19 infection than with actually being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” the authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.