Correlation Implies Causation [♠♣]

 (♠♣) 🚫 (♠->♣)  cum hoc ergo propter hoc 

Fallacy is when you see one of your top performing classmates spent whole night studying during exams preparation, so as to also be better on exams, next day you take tone of coffee and push your limits the whole night, well you know what happens on the next day and consequently at the end the guy will still kick you far back on the coming exams. Now you start believe the guy has some sort of mystical powers. Nop! But, fact is, you have created an insane correlation and act upon it

Statement … 🎙
You see your grandfather, he is good-looking, old in age and he eats Avocados frequently. Then instantly, you start talking about how Avocados can be beneficial to aged people and you think you got it. hahah…!!!
Next day you met another good-looking, old man, smoking weed. Will you instantly, add weed as beneficial to health too? I bet you will sit down and re-think!

The Fallacy …

Correlation (♠♣) does not implies causation (♠ -> ♣), especially for an impressive sample specimen of one.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

The Alternative …
For correlation to be applicable or make sense the observed number of samples must be large enough ♾ to give you a certain degree of confidence. But yet that will not confirm that occurrence of one cause the other, however it will assist you to have stronger reason for your actions than acting based on a single correlation by assuming one cause another.

Back to the statement … 🗣
So, from the top claim, it’s not reasonable for someone to conclude health condition of a person simply by observing a single parameter of preference. In that scenario you failed to include many other factors such as genetic make-up, diet, physical activities, etc. etc. where all contribute to someone health state. Well, someone will instantly argue, Do we really need any of this “mambojambo” in Business World? The answer is, Absolute Yes!.

Back to business … 💰
This is common, people sees a rich person wear shorts (kaptula), and instantly they assume wearing simple shorts save you money and make you rich hence they start wearing shorts and look like clowns. Next day they pick another rich person who is rich yet terrible in relationships, then instantly just a small misunderstanding with their dear ones, they break-up, get depressed and stay broke. It’s almost crazy the way individuals pick certain characters, build correlations and take insane actions. Next time when a successful person can walk naked and people will say, oh yea! that the secret for success, God Forbid What can Happen Next, hahah…

Conclusion …
So bro, Is using correlation a Bad Idea? Nop! In fact is a wonderful tool If you know how to use it well. One of the main efforts of Companies like Google and Facebook is to find how data are correlated, and they have earn a lot of profits based on those assumptions. The main difference between you and them is that, While Google creates correlations based on 1 Billion samples, your correlation is simply based on one sample. Well it turn out, these guys are efficient as a sniper and you are inefficient like crazy monkey learning algebra.

But you can still increase the efficiency of your steps, by having many samples of correlations before jumping into action. At the end, the issue of how many samples you put on table before acting, Is yours to decide. Regardless , you can still pick one sample and act.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s