6 ms·

"I'd consider dropping out if my science teacher couldn't distinguish correlation and causation in their paper." Are you arguing that higher grades might be ca

"I'd consider dropping out if my science teacher couldn't distinguish correlation and causation in their paper." Are you arguing that higher grades might be causing femaleness? Interesting theory.

Crito 12y ago
I think he is arguing against causation entirely, not asserting that the causation is working in the opposite direction.
- Zarel 12y ago
  That's a common misinterpretation of "correlation does not imply causation". It'd be more accurate to say "correlation implies causation but the direction of causation must be derived separately." If there's a real correlation between A and B (i.e. the correlation isn't a coincidence), that must mean that either A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor causes both A and B. In context, since we know that femaleness is (barring certain rare disorders) caused by the sex chromosome of the sperm that reaches the egg, which is essentially random, we can be fairly sure that it's not caused by school grades or anything that would affect school grades, which does allow us to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that femaleness (indirectly, of course) causes higher grades.
  - alasdair_ 12y ago
    > If there's a real correlation between A and B (i.e. the correlation isn't a coincidence), that must mean that either A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor causes both A and B. How can you ever tell that the correlation isn't a coincidence? (see: pirates are correlated with global warming http://sparrowism.soc.srcf.net/home/pirates.html http://sparrowism.soc.srcf.net/home/pirates.html) that seems a bit hand-wavey. "Oh, that's not a REAL correlation..." sounds a bit like "Oh, that's not a TRUE Scotsman..."
    - Zarel 12y ago
      Pirates being correlated with global warming isn't a coincidence; pirates decreasing and global warming are both (indirectly) caused by the Industrial Revolution. It's true that you can never be completely sure that any correlation isn't a coincidence, just like you can't be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can, however, be sure beyond a reasonable doubt with enough of a sample size and a strong enough correlation. Out of curiosity, do you personally believe it's likely (say, >5% chance) that it's a coincidence that girls have better grades than boys?
- abhorrence 12y ago
  My interpretation was that he suspects that the higher performing female students were the ones that were less likely to drop out due to the negatives that come from the male-domination of the subject. So rather than the professor's assertion that "females are the highest scorers", he is suggesting that "the females that don't leave are the highest scoring females".

"I'd consider dropping out if my science teacher couldn't distinguish correlation and causation in their paper." Are you arguing that higher grades might be causing femaleness? Interesting theory.

Crito 12y ago

I think he is arguing against causation entirely, not asserting that the causation is working in the opposite direction.

Zarel 12y ago
That's a common misinterpretation of "correlation does not imply causation". It'd be more accurate to say "correlation implies causation but the direction of causation must be derived separately." If there's a real correlation between A and B (i.e. the correlation isn't a coincidence), that must mean that either A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor causes both A and B. In context, since we know that femaleness is (barring certain rare disorders) caused by the sex chromosome of the sperm that reaches the egg, which is essentially random, we can be fairly sure that it's not caused by school grades or anything that would affect school grades, which does allow us to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that femaleness (indirectly, of course) causes higher grades.
- alasdair_ 12y ago
  > If there's a real correlation between A and B (i.e. the correlation isn't a coincidence), that must mean that either A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor causes both A and B. How can you ever tell that the correlation isn't a coincidence? (see: pirates are correlated with global warming http://sparrowism.soc.srcf.net/home/pirates.html http://sparrowism.soc.srcf.net/home/pirates.html) that seems a bit hand-wavey. "Oh, that's not a REAL correlation..." sounds a bit like "Oh, that's not a TRUE Scotsman..."
  - Zarel 12y ago
    Pirates being correlated with global warming isn't a coincidence; pirates decreasing and global warming are both (indirectly) caused by the Industrial Revolution. It's true that you can never be completely sure that any correlation isn't a coincidence, just like you can't be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can, however, be sure beyond a reasonable doubt with enough of a sample size and a strong enough correlation. Out of curiosity, do you personally believe it's likely (say, >5% chance) that it's a coincidence that girls have better grades than boys?
abhorrence 12y ago
My interpretation was that he suspects that the higher performing female students were the ones that were less likely to drop out due to the negatives that come from the male-domination of the subject. So rather than the professor's assertion that "females are the highest scorers", he is suggesting that "the females that don't leave are the highest scoring females".