Creativity Predicts a Longer Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Creativity Predicts a Longer Life

#31

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Sep 10, 2012, 6:07 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #30

dllthomas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please respond to the point of my post, if you are going to respond. "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion - obviously, we both think that. And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. This, I thought, was already established before your post here.

> "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation). > And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. The post that started this thread correctly identifies a case of touting a correlation as though it rep…

> That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation).

You have a habit of denying the obvious that is leading me to believe you are trolling, your profile and post history to the contrary.

You said, word for word, "I am not confused."

You then proceeded to say, "Confusing correlation with causation is a very common logical error -- you are not alone." This is quite clearly a statement that I am confused about correlation vs. causation.

Therefore, semantically, you said "I am not confused, you are" plus the well established point that confusion was related to correlation and causation.

Re: Creativity Predicts a Longer Life

#32

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Sep 10, 2012, 6:13 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #30

dllthomas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please respond to the point of my post, if you are going to respond. "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion - obviously, we both think that. And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. This, I thought, was already established before your post here.

> "I'm not confused, you are" adds nothing to the discussion That might be true if anyone had said it (avoid rhetorical escalation). > And yes, confusing correlation with causation is a common logical error - one that, I believe, you have become oversensitive to such that you are spotting it where it doesn't exist. The post that started this thread correctly identifies a case of touting a correlation as though it rep…

The entirety of my objection is to the notion that the word "predicts" implies causation. I didn't read the article closely, and assumed it was talking about correlation primarily because of the title. If the article generally is making stronger claims, by all means object, but object to the right thing. "Predicts" carries no implication of causation. "Poll results predict the election" is making a claim about a correlation. "The weatherman predicts the weather" is making a claim about a correlation. Heck, even "the tarot cards predict the future" is making a (false) claim about a correlation. Correlations are real and useful things that do or don't exist in any given case, and which can be used to make predictions. Where causation is necessary is in predicting the results of a change or intervention. If I publish higher poll numbers, that won't make my candidate win. If I make it rain, that will make there be puddles.

Re: Creativity Predicts a Longer Life

#33

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Sep 10, 2012, 6:40 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #7

dllthomas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That word "Predicts" is dangerous. It strongly suggests causation, though it only reflects a statistical correlation. REALLY? What do you WANT them to say? Accuracy of a prediction implies some sort of causal relationship, but not a direct one by any means. All of the thing you suggest are causal links. A genetic disorder causing a decrease in both lifespan and creativity is causation. "A predicts B" does NOT AT AL…

"is correlated with". If you're not convinced that the reporters are trying to suggest causation with the word "predicts", try swapping the two terms. Would they write a headline, "Longer life predicts creativity"?

It doesn't work the other way because of temporal constraints, not causality. A person's creativity happens before their longevity is determined. Similarly, you wouldn't write "election predicts poll results."

That said, if I was looking at records of the deceased and first discovered a person's age at time of death, then I could use the correlation to predict that I am likely to further find that they were creative.

Re: Creativity Predicts a Longer Life

#34

Post by meric » Mon, Sep 10, 2012, 10:48 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #27

meric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prediction and forecasting are two different things in regression. Regression is for predicting a dependent variable based one or more independent variables. It may or may not involve a time component. "Regression analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting, where its use has substantial overlap with the field of machine learning." Exactly. Prediction and forecasting are not the same thing. That's why they…

> Prediction and forecasting are two different things in regression. "Prediction" and "forecasting" are synonymous, in both common usage and in statistics. > Prediction and forecasting are not the same thing. That's why they had to state both. No they said both so people who refuse to accept the fact that they're synonymous, won't feel left out in the cold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction : "A prediction (Lat…

"In statistics, prediction is a part of statistical inference. One particular approach to such inference is known as predictive inference, but the prediction can be undertaken within any of the several approaches to statistical inference. Indeed, one description of statistics is that it provides a means of transferring knowledge about a sample of a population to the whole population, and to other related populations, which is not the same as prediction over time. When information is transferred across time, often to specific points in time, the process is known as forecasting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Statistics

It's not forecasting if it doesn't involve time, but it is if it does. That's why you can find evidence saying "Prediction == Forecasting" because that is true if there is a time component.