this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
853 points (97.4% liked)
Comic Strips
20269 readers
2155 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah, is this that claim from Freakomics that they made right after explaining that correlation doesn't imply causation?
Correlation not implying causation is not the same as correlation not implying relation. When data correlates, that means that there is a liklihood that there is some connection. For any two correlating datasets, there are 3 explanations, 1) coincidence 2) causation 3) relation to a shared casual link. Figuring out which it is just requires more data, experimentation, and/or an understanding of the mechanisms of their relation. We use correlation of datasets as a guide, and even as a proof of theory given enough experimentation and correlating data to show a casual link all the time in science.
I think that the liklihood that leaded gasoline is connected to the rates of serial killers and other forms of violent crime is high not just because of the correlation, but because of that and the fact that we have studies showing how lead poisoning can effect people's behavior. We know it can effect behavior, and we know that lead levels in the air peaked in the mid 70s before leaded gasoline was banned. It is not a leap to jump to the hypothesis that leaded gasoline causing high lead levels in the air from pollution may have effected human behavior. And then the data of serial killings and violent crime actually showing a correlation with those lead levels strengthens that hypothesis. I wouldn't say that it's proof, far from it. But I do think it's likely the truth.
Yup. There's a reason it's called co-relation.
Things can very much be co-related without one causing the other (e.g. when both are consequences of a third cause). And of course, correlated things can be completely unrelated still.
(And to emphasise: yes, it is also possible that there is a causal relation between correlated things.)
Right, I'm just venting my old frustration with that specific book because they only used the correlation as "proof", rather than indeed looking at more causal signals like studies on lead poisoning.
It is certainly also true that correlation doesn't mean that there's no causation, even in cases were there are no other experiments yet to support a causal relationship.
They found enough causation to ban lead in gasoline despite lobbying against the ban from both lead and oil companies.
Yeah, as I mentioned in the other reply, I'm not saying there's no causation. I was just annoyed by the Freakonomics book that didn't give any reason to believe there was, other than the correlation.