3 ms·
I agree that we should always at least read the linked article (and sometimes the original paper) before bringing out "correlation does not equal causation". H
by QuantumChaos 12y ago
I agree that we should always at least read the linked article (and sometimes the original paper) before bringing out "correlation does not equal causation".
However, you are overstating the case for the author's having dealt with reverse causality. From the conclusion:
When we addressed causality in IV estimates, the significance of the correlation between participation in social networking sites and subjective well-being disappeared.
See my top level comment for my own take on the article.
- anigbrowl 12y agoI'm not trying to make any comment on the significance of the result; the authors discuss those factors in detail in the body of the paper (around page 20) as well as mentioning the limitations in the abstract and conclusion. My gripe is with reflexive and unjustified statistical one-upmanship in HN discussions.