Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Correlation is not causation.

But correlation is evidence of causation.



It would have been more appropriate to have said "cooccurrence is not causation", because there isn't actually a correlation between personality flaws and accomplishment, just some notable cooccurrences.


No it isn't, correlation is evidence of correlation but it doesn't even imply causation.

Unless you believe correlation is providing evidence of causation here:

http://gizmodo.com/5977989/internet-explorer-vs-murder-rate-...

and here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fa...


>Unless you believe correlation is providing evidence of causation here:

In both cases, yes, it is evidence of causation. However the low prior probability of causation in each case massively overwhelms the evidence provided by observing a correlation.

Here's an easy way to tell if A is evidence of B: ask the inverse question - is "not A" evidence of "not B". If so, it is trivially provable that the answer is yes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: