3 ms·

Correlation doesn’t imply causation and if there is correlation it doesn’t imply the direction.

• lolinder 3y ago
  This link is to a study that was a randomized trial, which means it can theoretically contribute to establishing causation: > In a six-wave longitudinal experiment, we investigated whether randomly assigning engaged or newlywed couples to merge their money in a joint bank account increases relationship quality over time. Whereas couples assigned to keep their money in separate accounts or to a no-intervention condition exhibited the normative decline in relationship quality across the first 2 years of marriage, couples assigned to merge money in a joint account sustained strong relationship quality throughout.
  • torstenvl 3y ago
    No. The link is to an abstract of a study, and the abstract claims that it was a randomized trial. A reasonable person may, of course, decide to trust the authors and assume they executed the randomization correctly. However, without being able to read the methodology of the study (which is paywalled), it is just that: an assumption.
    • lolinder 3y ago
      This is a reasonable nitpick, but I'm responding to someone who said "correlation does not imply causation", which pretty clearly communicates that they didn't even read the abstract. Note that I said it can theoretically contribute to causation—I'm not saying the study came to the correct conclusion, just that people should actually follow the link rather than critiquing the study based on the title alone.
  • mulmen 3y ago
    Sure. I was speaking in generalities.