= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on Let Them Debate College Students - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
Could you explain this, please? I don't think many people understand.
It is possible to have a negative influence on something while also being positively correlated with it. For example, tax-paid-this-financial-year is positively correlated with net worth despite being a negative contribution. (At least, it is sure to be once we control for legal expenses!)
The equations just point roughly to how (with the right x) a set could be produced where B tends to have a negative causal influence on A despite being positively correlated. I'm not sure how useful they are in understanding the flaw in the statement "surely causality is correlation". But then, I also would have thought "um... no?" to be more than sufficient. The only interpretation I can make of that claim that doesn't seem completely ridiculous is if he means 'an overriding dominant causal influence will guarantee correlation'. Even then, it's not what he said and it doesn't remotely fit the context.
Ahhh, excellent, thankyou.
The original sense would be that intelligence makes one good at rhetoric and logic, but practising rhetoric then makes one worse at logic. My personal experience (weakly) confirms this.