Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • A common misconception in statistics is to think that correlation implies causationlike,

  • if more tall people have cats, you might think that means being tall makes people more likely

  • to get a cat.

  • However, simply knowing a correlation between height and cat ownership can't tell us which

  • way the causality goesit may instead be that having a cat causes people to grow

  • talleror perhaps the real cause is something else altogether, like that the people and

  • cats live on two separate islands, one a lush paradise with enough food for growing tall

  • and feeding pet cats, and the other a wasteland that limits both height and cat ownership.

  • The point of examples like this is that noticing a correlation between two things doesn't

  • imply that one of those things causes the other.

  • Hence the common refrain: correlation doesn't imply causation.

  • And it's trueit doesn't!

  • But this oft-repeated mantra leads to another common misconceptionthe idea that you

  • can't infer any causality from statistics.

  • You can!

  • I mean, it's quite reasonable to think that, if two things are correlated, there's likely

  • some reason, , even if a single correlation can't tell you.

  • Sometimes you can infer the causality from additional informationlike knowing that

  • one thing happened before the otherbut you can also infer causality directly from

  • correlations – you just need more than one, together with something called causal

  • networks.

  • Like, in our cat-height-island example, we know that cat ownership and height are correlated,

  • but we don't know what the cause of that correlation is.

  • If we don't know anything else, then there are 19 – yes 19! – different causal relationships

  • that could explain the situation.

  • 20 if you think the correlation is just an accident.

  • However, perhaps we know two other things: first, suppose people born on a particular

  • island stay there, so their height doesn't influence what island they live on, and we

  • can rule out the relationships where height influences island.

  • Second, suppose that on either island, taken by itself, there isn't any correlation between

  • height and cat ownership; then we can rule out all the options where height and cats

  • influence each other directly . This leaves us with just two options: either the islands

  • are the causal explanation for both height and cat ownership (maybe, as before, one island

  • is a lush, healthy paradise for both people and cats), or else cat ownership is the causal

  • explanation for the islands which are the causal explanation for height, (like, maybe

  • an abundance of cats turned the island into a paradise, thereby influencing the height

  • of future cat owners).

  • So, starting with 19 possible causal relationships, we used correlations to narrow things down

  • to just 2 optionsnot bad!

  • Of course, this is just a simple example, but for any group of things, you can use the

  • various correlations between them (or lack of correlations) to eliminate some of the

  • possible cause-and-effect relationships.

  • And that's how correlations CAN imply causation.

  • There is one problem, thoughsome experiments in quantum mechanics have correlations that

  • rule out ALL possible cause and effect relationships.

  • We'll have to save the details for a later video, but until then, may I suggest a new

  • version of the famous refrain?

  • Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it can if you use it to evaluate

  • causal models.

  • Except in quantum mechanics.”

  • I've got a little more about statistics and causality after this, but first I'm

  • excited to introduce the very relevant sponsor for this video:

  • Brilliant is a problem solving website designed to help you practice and learn math and science

  • via guided problems, puzzles and quizzes: I know that sounds kind of nerdy, but the

  • truth is that the only way to truly learn and understand much of math and physics is

  • to actively work through the material yourselfvideos only get you so far.

  • And Brilliant does a brilliant job of making that easy, sneakily enticing you into doing

  • math and physics problems by means of intriguing questions structured for all ability and knowledge

  • levels.

  • I say this from experience, because if you haven't done a problem for a few days, Brilliant

  • will send you an attention-grabbing puzzle , and I've been sucked in by quite a few

  • of them.

  • If you want to try out Brilliant (which I recommend), heading to

  • will let them know you came from here, and you can check out their courses on Probability,

  • the Physics of the Everyday, Classical Mechanics, Gravitational Physics and so on.

  • Hey, glad you're still herein case you're interested, there's a footnotes

  • video covering a few things that got cut out of this one, like feedback loops and correlations

  • that arise just by chance.

  • The link's on screen and in the video description.

A common misconception in statistics is to think that correlation implies causationlike,

Subtitles and vocabulary

Operation of videos Adjust the video here to display the subtitles

B1 correlation height causality ownership brilliant island

Correlation CAN Imply Causation! | Statistics Misconceptions

  • 3 0
    Summer posted on 2021/03/21
Video vocabulary