This is why you never check the comments on a joke you initially thought was funny.
Comment on Not the same
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 week ago
I like the meme, but I don’t think it actually works. The implication here is that there’s a correlation between confusing correlation with causation and dying. But there isn’t such a correlation. You are statistically equally likely to die either way
RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You are statistically equally likely to die either way
That just adds an additional layer to the joke without undermining the intended punchline about people confusing the two.
credo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
THATS THE JOKE
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 week ago
No, it’s not. The joke is that there is a correlation, but that actually correlation doesn’t mean causation. But here we have a situation where there is neither correlation nor causation.
The problem is that the joke suggests that correlation is when A -> B (or at least it appears as such). Implication (in formal logic) is not the same as correlation.
credo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Sorry to get mathematical…
P(A∣B)=P(A) iff P(B∣A)=P(B) iff P(A∩B)=P(A)P(B)
->𝐴 and 𝐵 are uncorrelated or independent.
tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
isn’t that just Bayesian apologist propaganda?
*jumps in an unlabelled Frequentist van* “Floor it!”
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Don’t even need to bring probability into this. Death is certain, and correlation requires variance.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Yup.
If the rate of dying is 100% for all humans.
Then the rate of dying for both humans who confuse correlation and causation and those who don’t is 100%. Hence there is no correlation between the confusion and dying. So no one is confusing correlation or causation, because neither are present.