4 ms·

"Correlation is not causation!" is a midwit[0] argument. Not everything can be a RCT. Correlation is where you start, and it doesn't take a ton of imaginati

"Correlation is not causation!" is a midwit[0] argument. Not everything can be a RCT. Correlation is where you start, and it doesn't take a ton of imagination to understand how causation might work in this case. [0]https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/iq-bell-curve-midwit https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/iq-bell-curve-midwit

omnicognate 4y ago
Middlebrow dismissal, as it's often called on hn. ("Shallow dismissal" in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
- cowuser666 4y ago
  It clarifies the point he's making. It's not the point itself.
  - omnicognate 4y ago
    Not sure what you mean? I wasn't correcting or disagreeing with anyone if that's what you thought.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Middlebrow dismissal ...In Argument Theory. Not in the current context though, as the poster (hi there) expressed something quite different. Details around, if the original post does not suffice.
mdp2021 4y ago
Have you perchance misunderstood my post into that «Correlation is not causation»? What I meant is there literally: you have to «investigat[e] the paths of causation», which is meant to mean, you cannot (should not) practically fight the full correlated context, but the specific cause. I.e., in the picked metaphor: "you do not blame life for death" - find specific causes and curb them. Which, by the way, if the "«midwit»" reference were still applicable, is beyond "IQ", because what was expressed is meant to be "in the set of basics" - yet to appearance absent in the article. I expressed that the article seems to miss that basic point. I.e., the idea that "smartphones and social media" would be detrimental is extremely cheap, as if saying that "heating is polluting" - yes, and also useful, so you identify the weak parts and try to act on them. > and it doesn't take a ton of imagination But the article did not exercise that. And I think it would have been "kind of required". See my other reply nearby, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102296

omnicognate 4y ago

Middlebrow dismissal, as it's often called on hn. ("Shallow dismissal" in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

cowuser666 4y ago
It clarifies the point he's making. It's not the point itself.
- omnicognate 4y ago
  Not sure what you mean? I wasn't correcting or disagreeing with anyone if that's what you thought.
mdp2021 4y ago
> Middlebrow dismissal ...In Argument Theory. Not in the current context though, as the poster (hi there) expressed something quite different. Details around, if the original post does not suffice.

mdp2021 4y ago

Have you perchance misunderstood my post into that «Correlation is not causation»? What I meant is there literally: you have to «investigat[e] the paths of causation», which is meant to mean, you cannot (should not) practically fight the full correlated context, but the specific cause. I.e., in the picked metaphor: "you do not blame life for death" - find specific causes and curb them. Which, by the way, if the "«midwit»" reference were still applicable, is beyond "IQ", because what was expressed is meant to be "in the set of basics" - yet to appearance absent in the article. I expressed that the article seems to miss that basic point. I.e., the idea that "smartphones and social media" would be detrimental is extremely cheap, as if saying that "heating is polluting" - yes, and also useful, so you identify the weak parts and try to act on them. > and it doesn't take a ton of imagination But the article did not exercise that. And I think it would have been "kind of required". See my other reply nearby, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35102296