4 ms·
It doesn't appear incorrect to me. The blurb on the graph says "For example, a higher percentage of Elwoods are farmers than of most any other name." As I read
by adevine 12y ago
It doesn't appear incorrect to me. The blurb on the graph says "For example, a higher percentage of Elwoods are farmers than of most any other name."
As I read it, it means that, say, 1% of Elwoods become farmers, while only .1% of Steves are farmers. That is, if your name is Elwood, you are much more likely to be a farmer than if your name is anything else.
- coherentpony 12y agoWhat you're implying here is that correlation implies causation. If 99% of farmers are Elwoods, you can't claim that one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to become a farmer.
- walterbell 12y agoIn that scenario, could one claim that "one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to BE a farmer"?
- teamhappy 12y agoYup, you got it right. The wording is important. Apparently, if your name is Elwood you're more likely to be a farmer today. But that obviously doesn't mean that kids named Elwood are more likely to become farmers (it could, but I'm afraid you're gonna have to proof that). Wikipedia has some simple examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
- madcaptenor 12y agoIn this case, it probably means that people named Elwood are more likely to (a) be older and (b) live in rural areas, both of which are correlated with being a farmer.
- stdbrouw 12y agoThe predictive element itself has little to do with correlation/causation, though. "If you have gray hair, you're more likely to die in the next ten years than people without gray hair" is a perfectly valid statement, and does not imply at all that gray hair is causing people to die. If anything, it's more like an ecological fallacy or unwarranted extrapolation to the future.
- emodendroket 12y agoDo we have to write comments here as though we're writing the final draft of a math textbook? What's meant is clear enough.
- coherentpony 12y agoWhat's clear to you may not be clear to someone else.
- radicalbyte 12y agoThat's Nominative Determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism Think someone called Crapper being a toilet salesman, or Smith being a Blacksmith, Baker being a Baker etc. I.e. a funny non-science based upon misunderstanding historical coincidence (profession being used as surnames, family marketing name being used as a crass synoniem for something else) with causation.
- emodendroket 12y agoWhat? No it isn't. They're talking about given names, for one thing. For another, unless I missed it, they aren't positing a reason for this; they are simply saying which given names have more people in a given profession than would be expected based on averages.
- jen729w 12y agoCovered heavily by New Scientist over the years (with tongue usually firmly in cheek). https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nominative%20determinism%20site%3Anewscientist.com https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=...