> But when they controlled for household income, they found most of the correlation disappeared. Controlling for things is mostly bad statistics, although of c

> But when they controlled for household income, they found most of the correlation disappeared. Controlling for things is mostly bad statistics, although of course all social science is bad statistics. Confounding variables are bad controls more often than they're good ones, so controlling for them introduces collider bias. Also, finding a result and then controlling for something is a multiple comparison fallacy. The correct thing to do is to have a theory of causation and then design a study that's capable of detecting it, not the other way round.