3 ms·
You are correct if what you're implying is that correlation isn't a robust measure. Whereas non-correlation can be quite robust if your test isn't constructed
by theophrastus 12y ago
You are correct if what you're implying is that correlation isn't a robust measure. Whereas non-correlation can be quite robust if your test isn't constructed badly (or as you imply 'constructed' badly) It's important to consider the meaning of such measures without regard to quality of the test; which can always be faulty.
- micro_cam 12y agoThat is my point exactly though I am extremely skeptical of any test for non-correlation. Gelman actually has some other articles worth reading on how dangerous it can be to make policy decisions based on such tests with real world examples including traffic laws.