Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is grappling with a metaphysical issue:
Me: What are you pondering?
Hili: Correlation and causation.
Me: Yes, it’s an old problem, correlation is a clue, but it can be misleading.
In Polish:
Ja: Nad czym się zastanawiasz?
Hili: Nad korelacją i przyczynowością.
Ja: Tak, to stary problemn. Korelacja jest wskazówką, ale może być myląca.
I was first introduced to the issue sophomore year in an econ stat course by prof Martin Garrett who in his well-developed Southern accent told us about the correlation between the heat of the sidewalks in New York and the birthrate in India: “Mahhvelous correlation” said he, then continued “but meaningless”.
Did your professor just make that up? (I did look it up.) It would not be a compelling argument for his point unless there really was a statistically validated correlation established between hot New York sidewalks and the birthrate in India to begin with. Only then could one begin to show that correlation wasn’t causation (in this case only, not generally), but the completion of the task would require exhaustively ruling out a causal connection to explain the correlation. After all, that’s why we do correlations, as a screening test for causation. A properly controlled experiment would settle the issue but you can’t run expensive experiments on everything.
The skeptic in me says he just made this up. First, in those days of regressions done with pencils, adding machines, and printed tables of squares and square roots, or laborious punch-card computers at best, it’s unlikely that anyone would go to the great trouble of doing a regression analysis of two scientifically uninteresting variables without an a priori hypothesis. Second, what do we mean by temperature of a sidewalk? Highest that year? Average temperature through a summer? Through a whole year? Who even measures sidewalk temperature systematically except buskers who want to be sure, before they gather a crowd, that an egg really will fry on the sidewalk today? Maybe the surrogate for sidewalk temperature was number of local news and weather stories each summer about eggs frying on sidewalks.
In statistically robust correlations, there probably is a causal relationship somewhere, — how else would knowing the value of the independent variable give one any predictive information at all about the dependent variable? It’s just often (even usually) not the first explanation that pops into one’s mind. If hot sidewalks really were correlated with birthrates on the other side of the world, there probably was some non-obvious causal mechanism operating. Maybe in years it was too hot in New York, Indian women of child-bearing age who couldn’t afford A/C didn’t emigrate and so had their babies in India instead. Maybe air pollution from coal smoke caused higher infant mortality in India — it does — and encouraged compensatory fecundity, and also aggravated global warming to heat the sidewalks in NYC. Alternatively, I suspect presumptively that there really was no such correlation — your prof was putting you on —, not that a true correlation should ever cause an audience to mock causality.
The message for sophomores is not that correlation doesn’t imply causation — it does! — but that the cause should not be assumed to be the comfortably obvious one.
Totally, Leslie. The correlation – causation problem is one of the mis-drivers of our civilization. Bc it is so easy to make and mess up the conclusions. Politicians exploit it and I never know whether they’re stupid or cunning.
It is clearly a pressure point (re: previous posts) of yours, like mine is yelling into the hurricane of people who don’t understand randomness, or statistics in any form. (Covid taught me this society wide ignorance exists, even “notables” and media figures seemed unaware). Pinker has also talked of this.
Maybe lessons on White Supwemacy, Zionism or “Thystemic Waacism!!” could be replaced by a statistics class – that might help our society? Or at least help the intelligencia who will be running things soon.
best,
D.A.
NYC
I was in my backyard, Jim, when 3 of those gunships (I think that’s what they’re called) —those big, fat helicopter things with propellers on the front AND the back? They flew overhead very low and slowly. Ominous. We have David Monthan Air Force Base nearby and Morris Air National Guard Base even nearer. I don’t care for my proximity to all these loud things and every time they rattle my windows I wonder how people must feel who are being bombed by these things. Terrifying. I realize, “they’re keeping us safe” as the refrain goes in Tucson, but… anyway, watching these fat helicopters made me think of you. You would probably enjoy watching them, am I right about that? I just wondered.
Yep. I enjoy watching all aircraft. At Langley AFB in next-door Hampton, for years, a crowd of locals with cameras would camp out just outside the fence off the end of the runway to catch planes at low altitudes during take-offs and landings. We occasionally have visitors from other nations and you really have to access memory to id them. In our heavily military area with a Navy Master Jet Base, air Force fighter base, Army Aviation HQ with helicopters, Navy AirStation Norfolk among others, the chamber of commerce puts out “I love Jet Noise” and “Sound of Freedom” bumper stickers.
HAHAHA
Sorry Debi, I’m on Jim’s side on this one: I love military stuff. Every Friday around noon I watch for the USAF planes flying up over the Hudson on their way north from my apartment. C-140s, those chonky radar ones, sleek fighter jets whose rumble and sheer power hit one’s very soul. All from my window here and I LOVE it! Friday at David’s.
They don’t rattle my windows of course (Manhattan) but I have my binoculars here ready every Friday.
Remember though Jim is an official Star Man and an acknowledged expert on space and USAF stuff – respect – but it isn’t a stretch to get that women (and, gotta love ’em!) …. just aren’t into the toys we boys like to play with and enjoy.(Lots of evo-psych data on this as you’ll know. Toy studies)
Viva la difference!
D.A.
NYC
Ah, you would have loved the sound of B-52 maintenance with the engines revved at 3am!
Debi, as another airplane enthusiast, perhaps I can set your mind at ease that the fat noisy helicopters with two large rotors are probably heavy-lift transport aircraft, Chinooks my guess. Not gunships and they don’t bomb anyone. Vulnerable to anyone on the ground with a rifle, stubborn courage, and a good aim. Apocalypse Now they aren’t. Helicopters are inherently loud because keeping something heavy in the air with brute force just is.
The version Canada uses is like the Chevy Bel Air, six cylinders and three on the tree, no A/C and AM radio optional at extra cost.. Yours are Cadillacs kitted out for exotic missions where special forces have to be inserted somewhere far away in the middle of the night and exfiltrated before anyone knows they were there.
When she said helo-looking thingy, I thought she might have seen a V-22 Osprey. But when she said gunship, I assume she means the C-130 variant that they have near her at Davis-Monthan. Even non-rated people in the AF will sometimes mistakenly call them “gunships” when they aren’t configured as such.
Of course, that other service has those other things that you mention.
I still owe you an answer about war powers. Waiting an appropriate time in a live thread. And pondering an appropriate answer!
Normally I comment on Hili–glad to see her today as usual–but, in case Professor Ceiling Cat is not aware of it, a volcano in southwestern Iceland started erupting yesterday. You may be in for an exciting adventure.
Ah yes. Correlation vs. causation. A perennial problem. Good that Hili is working on it.
An issue that only cats can be trusted with.
Correlation: men who marry live longer.
Non-causal explanation: they don’t really live longer, it only feels longer.
Aw, that’s not very nice. Marriage is a great deal for men who are cut out for it, which I would say even if my wife didn’t read these comments. Women have a knack for picking men who aren’t going to die on them and leave them destitute with four young children.
Its a joke. The third variable problem applies – e.g., healthier men are more likely to marry and to live longer.
Other biological factors also, Mike (and Leslie). Testosterone isn’t HELPFUL in the aging of most body systems. It is a remarkably hazardous hormone in the aging department (organs, veins, brain health, cancer suppression reduction etc.)
And of course, average age wise …. there’s the thing dudes do when we’re young and stupid. Pretty much any action or “show” that comes after the young man’s words: “Hold my beer” or “Get a load of THIS stunt, mates.” (See: Darwin Awards since before Darwin!).
Plus.. and it is my pet theory… just GOING TO THE DOCTOR makes a difference, statistically. Just from anecdotal evidence I’ve collected over my life – I can think of a lot of guys who’d be so very dead if their wives didn’t nag them into “GO AND SEE THE DOCTOR ABOUT THAT!”.
Women are so much better at conscientiousness when it comes to getting checked out by professionals in the 2nd half of life. Many such cases.
D.A.
NYC
I knew you were joking. If I had thought you were really serious I would have huffed more indignantly. I just wanted the chance to say something nice about my wife in public.