4 ms·

It's getting hard to find any study posted without a kneejerk "correlation does not equal causation" take as if that's not something researchers have to control

It's getting hard to find any study posted without a kneejerk "correlation does not equal causation" take as if that's not something researchers have to control for in order to even conduct the study in the first place, let alone publish

mapt 2mo ago
The institutional media departments, journalists, and headline writers add back in the insinuated causation and effect size as a routine matter. That way we can't find fault with the researchers for their clickbait study.
jmull 2mo ago
> kneejerk "correlation does not equal causation" The article (and apparently the researchers too) advances the idea there's a causal link here, even though one is not shown by the research. They go so far as to generally prescribe spatial reasoning training as a way to reduce Alzheimers risk. You might be tired of hearing "correlation does not equal causation", but it needs to be said here.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  On hackernews I really don't think it needs to be said. Call me arrogant/too generous to this community, but I think most of the users here know the phrase and its meaning. Seeing 8000 variants of it doesn't contribute, and since it costs nothing to say "I bet they made a mistake" while elevating your own intellect people default to it far too much.
  - jmull 2mo ago
    Read the comment I replied to. It claims the researches must have somehow controlled for correlation (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Which they haven’t. There are a bunch of other comments arguing there’s something beyond correlation shown here. But it hasn’t. The study just demonstrates correlation. The misunderstanding here is widespread so it worth calling out. It’s actually kind of funny that people are more sick of the mistake being pointed out over and over than of the mistake being made over and over.
    - Forgeties79 2mo ago
      Ok, if we’re going to play this game, what indicates they are making “correlation = causation” errors? What specifically about this study fell for that trap and has not shown something meaningful? You seem very confident they screwed this up, so there must be a reason. And no I’m not digging through your comments to piece together your argument lol I’m sorry but it is ridiculous of you to expect me to comb through your comments and synthesize your point. If your comments were so thorough and proved it then just copy and paste 1 or 2 here that are driving the point home with actual evidence.

mapt 2mo ago

The institutional media departments, journalists, and headline writers add back in the insinuated causation and effect size as a routine matter. That way we can't find fault with the researchers for their clickbait study.

jmull 2mo ago

> kneejerk "correlation does not equal causation" The article (and apparently the researchers too) advances the idea there's a causal link here, even though one is not shown by the research. They go so far as to generally prescribe spatial reasoning training as a way to reduce Alzheimers risk. You might be tired of hearing "correlation does not equal causation", but it needs to be said here.

Forgeties79 2mo ago
On hackernews I really don't think it needs to be said. Call me arrogant/too generous to this community, but I think most of the users here know the phrase and its meaning. Seeing 8000 variants of it doesn't contribute, and since it costs nothing to say "I bet they made a mistake" while elevating your own intellect people default to it far too much.
- jmull 2mo ago
  Read the comment I replied to. It claims the researches must have somehow controlled for correlation (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Which they haven’t. There are a bunch of other comments arguing there’s something beyond correlation shown here. But it hasn’t. The study just demonstrates correlation. The misunderstanding here is widespread so it worth calling out. It’s actually kind of funny that people are more sick of the mistake being pointed out over and over than of the mistake being made over and over.
  - Forgeties79 2mo ago
    Ok, if we’re going to play this game, what indicates they are making “correlation = causation” errors? What specifically about this study fell for that trap and has not shown something meaningful? You seem very confident they screwed this up, so there must be a reason. And no I’m not digging through your comments to piece together your argument lol I’m sorry but it is ridiculous of you to expect me to comb through your comments and synthesize your point. If your comments were so thorough and proved it then just copy and paste 1 or 2 here that are driving the point home with actual evidence.