I think part of the issue is that there is a further gap between correlation and even indirect causation, at least for the term causation as used in scientific literature. When the outside cause is external enough, we generally don’t describe the correlation between two symptoms as a causative relationship. Strong coincidence implies that there is some cause, but it’s useful to distinguish where one trait actually forces the other into existence, as opposed to where an external cause forces both traits to exist. Correlation requires only two traits: causation requires a direction.
For example, you could have a million candies that were cylindrical and had spots, and a million more candies that were spherical and had no spots, and absolutely no candies that were outside of those fields. That’d be incredibly strong correlative evidence, and we could pretty reliably reject coincidence (see odds ratios for the less-math-heavy version, or statistical hypothesis testing for the mathematician one). If you had to predict future events, it’s be a great place to start out.
But even that level of confidence doesn’t tell us that being cylindrical makes the candy have spots. It could be that your grandmother likes two particular brands of candy, one that is cylindrical with spots, and one that is spherical without spots. That’s a causal relationship, but it’s between your grandmother’s candy preferences and the results, not between one candy trait and the next. ((In more complicated scenarios, you can have correlation with a cause of “your study methodology”, which is technically casual but not very helpful.))
That’s not an academic distinction. If you really disliked the spots on your candy and those spots were caused by the candy being cylindrical, you could ask your grandmother not to bring the cylindrical candies. If there’s not a causative link between cylindrical candies and spotted candies, you might end up finding yourself with new spherical spotted candies (especially if the underlying cause is that your grandmother likes spotted candies!).
I think you had this part down, so my apologies if I’m repeating what you’ve said.
Yudkowsky brings up one example, after saying that, while correlation does not prove causation, it provides a strong wink-and-nudge eyebrow-wiggling sorta deal. You could look at the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, and then start digging. This isn’t a perfect example, though : smoking strongly correlates with a wide array of schizoid and schizophrenic spectrum disorders, but as far as we can tell now that’s not because smoking causes schizophrenia.
(I’ve hunch: It involves the part where I neglected my ignorance and decided to post anyway)
It is very rarely better to remain confused, and I doubt this is one of those circumstances.
An example I found interesting: in the early epidemiological research you see a substantial correlation between alcohol use and lung cancer. Turns out that’s not a (direct) causal relationship, but just because smoking and drinking are correlated.
At first glance my first impulse is to comment this relationship between smoking and schizophreny...
...And just going with this post of mine, I think there’s a causal relationship between schizophreny and smoking if this relationship is detected on an individual level. It could be that schizophrenia causes people to smoke for some reason, or through other factors, or that cigarete smoking causes schizophrenia, or there’s a factor that causes both smoking and schizophrenia.. I think there has to be somekind of explanation, because coincidence seems too unlikely.
But my judgement may be affected because I have the following vague memory:
...As far as I know cigarette smoke hinders a Fibroblastic or neuroblastic growth factor from functioning, it happens to affect the growth of amygdala, and damage to amygdala is linked to schizophreny. Which would.. Well “wink” at smoking → growth factor malfunction → amygdala malfunction → increased likelihood for obtaining schizophrenic symptoms. However all these facts would need to be checked. :D
I think part of the issue is that there is a further gap between correlation and even indirect causation, at least for the term causation as used in scientific literature. When the outside cause is external enough, we generally don’t describe the correlation between two symptoms as a causative relationship. Strong coincidence implies that there is some cause, but it’s useful to distinguish where one trait actually forces the other into existence, as opposed to where an external cause forces both traits to exist. Correlation requires only two traits: causation requires a direction.
For example, you could have a million candies that were cylindrical and had spots, and a million more candies that were spherical and had no spots, and absolutely no candies that were outside of those fields. That’d be incredibly strong correlative evidence, and we could pretty reliably reject coincidence (see odds ratios for the less-math-heavy version, or statistical hypothesis testing for the mathematician one). If you had to predict future events, it’s be a great place to start out.
But even that level of confidence doesn’t tell us that being cylindrical makes the candy have spots. It could be that your grandmother likes two particular brands of candy, one that is cylindrical with spots, and one that is spherical without spots. That’s a causal relationship, but it’s between your grandmother’s candy preferences and the results, not between one candy trait and the next. ((In more complicated scenarios, you can have correlation with a cause of “your study methodology”, which is technically casual but not very helpful.))
That’s not an academic distinction. If you really disliked the spots on your candy and those spots were caused by the candy being cylindrical, you could ask your grandmother not to bring the cylindrical candies. If there’s not a causative link between cylindrical candies and spotted candies, you might end up finding yourself with new spherical spotted candies (especially if the underlying cause is that your grandmother likes spotted candies!).
I think you had this part down, so my apologies if I’m repeating what you’ve said.
It’s easiest to actually distinguish causation from correlation by understanding the full story of events, but there are some tools that let you determine it from data, but you have to be really sure of your data or you can get into some really ugly errors. ((There are also some entirely mathematical tests, like the Granger Causality test, but these are generally useful only in limited fields and can reach ridiculous and wrong conclusions outside of them.))
Yudkowsky brings up one example, after saying that, while correlation does not prove causation, it provides a strong wink-and-nudge eyebrow-wiggling sorta deal. You could look at the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, and then start digging. This isn’t a perfect example, though : smoking strongly correlates with a wide array of schizoid and schizophrenic spectrum disorders, but as far as we can tell now that’s not because smoking causes schizophrenia.
It is very rarely better to remain confused, and I doubt this is one of those circumstances.
An example I found interesting: in the early epidemiological research you see a substantial correlation between alcohol use and lung cancer. Turns out that’s not a (direct) causal relationship, but just because smoking and drinking are correlated.
Highly suspect that time perspective predicts both schizphrenia and smoking
Thanks for your comment.
At first glance my first impulse is to comment this relationship between smoking and schizophreny...
...And just going with this post of mine, I think there’s a causal relationship between schizophreny and smoking if this relationship is detected on an individual level. It could be that schizophrenia causes people to smoke for some reason, or through other factors, or that cigarete smoking causes schizophrenia, or there’s a factor that causes both smoking and schizophrenia.. I think there has to be somekind of explanation, because coincidence seems too unlikely.
But my judgement may be affected because I have the following vague memory:
...As far as I know cigarette smoke hinders a Fibroblastic or neuroblastic growth factor from functioning, it happens to affect the growth of amygdala, and damage to amygdala is linked to schizophreny. Which would.. Well “wink” at smoking → growth factor malfunction → amygdala malfunction → increased likelihood for obtaining schizophrenic symptoms. However all these facts would need to be checked. :D