AstraSequi comments on Results of a One-Year Longitudinal Study of CFAR Alumni - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Unnamed 12 December 2015 04:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (35)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 16 December 2015 04:30:49AM *  2 points [-]

Should be careful with that, might confuse people, see also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

which gets it wrong.


A variable with no detectable correlation with the outcome might still be a confounder, of course, you might have unfaithful things going on, or dependence might be non-linear. "Unlikely" usually implies "with respect to some model" you have in mind. How do you know that model is right? What if the true model is highly unfaithful for some reason? etc. etc.


edit: I don't mean to jump on you specifically, but it sort of is unfortunate that it somehow is a social norm to say wrong things in statistics "informally." To me, that's sort of like saying "don't worry, when I said 2+2=5, I was being informal."

Comment author: AstraSequi 18 December 2015 02:29:25AM 1 point [-]

To me, that's sort of like saying "don't worry, when I said 2+2=5, I was being informal."

Very true. This is something I'll try to change.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 18 December 2015 03:45:56PM *  1 point [-]

Cheers! If you know what M-bias is, we must have hung out in similar circles. Where did you learn "the causal view of epi"?