I’ve chided rationalists on this before but nearly every intellectual is guilty of taking words with a formal definition and abusing them as metaphors.“Correlated with” almost always means “weakly causatively related” and almost never literally “correlated with” Rigor is a spook
-
-
Replying to @the_aiju
I find this not helpful as a framing because the direction of causality is not clear in most applications and because the consumer of your analysis will always always misinterpret it I tell you this as a professional who spends most of his time conveying such results
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m just reporting how I see people use and interpret “correlated with”, the fact that it’s misunderstood widely is exactly my point.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Replying to @the_aiju
I was stuck on "correlated with almost always . . ." Hmm
10:08 AM - 23 Jul 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.