Mixing
Can you infer causality from correlation?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Ive just had en exam where we were prestented two variables. In a dictator game where a dictator is given 100 USD, and can choose how much to choose or keep for himself, there was a positive correlation between age and how much money the participants decided to keep.
My thinking is that you cant infer causality from this because you cant infer causation from correlation. My classmate thinks that you can because if you for example split the participants up into three seperate groups you can see how they differ in how much they keep and how much they share and therefore conclude that age causes them to keep more. Who is correct and why?
correlation causality
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Ive just had en exam where we were prestented two variables. In a dictator game where a dictator is given 100 USD, and can choose how much to choose or keep for himself, there was a positive correlation between age and how much money the participants decided to keep.
My thinking is that you cant infer causality from this because you cant infer causation from correlation. My classmate thinks that you can because if you for example split the participants up into three seperate groups you can see how they differ in how much they keep and how much they share and therefore conclude that age causes them to keep more. Who is correct and why?
correlation causality
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Normally you can't infer causality from correlation, unless you have a designed experiment.
– user2974951
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Ive just had en exam where we were prestented two variables. In a dictator game where a dictator is given 100 USD, and can choose how much to choose or keep for himself, there was a positive correlation between age and how much money the participants decided to keep.
My thinking is that you cant infer causality from this because you cant infer causation from correlation. My classmate thinks that you can because if you for example split the participants up into three seperate groups you can see how they differ in how much they keep and how much they share and therefore conclude that age causes them to keep more. Who is correct and why?
correlation causality
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ive just had en exam where we were prestented two variables. In a dictator game where a dictator is given 100 USD, and can choose how much to choose or keep for himself, there was a positive correlation between age and how much money the participants decided to keep.
My thinking is that you cant infer causality from this because you cant infer causation from correlation. My classmate thinks that you can because if you for example split the participants up into three seperate groups you can see how they differ in how much they keep and how much they share and therefore conclude that age causes them to keep more. Who is correct and why?
correlation causality
correlation causality
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
edited 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
4,0281529
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
asked 2 hours ago
JonnyBravo
111
111
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
JonnyBravo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Normally you can't infer causality from correlation, unless you have a designed experiment.
– user2974951
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Normally you can't infer causality from correlation, unless you have a designed experiment.
– user2974951
2 hours ago
Normally you can't infer causality from correlation, unless you have a designed experiment.
– user2974951
2 hours ago
Normally you can't infer causality from correlation, unless you have a designed experiment.
– user2974951
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Inferring causation from correlation in general is problematic because there may be a number of other reasons for the correlation. For example, spurious correlations due to confounders, selection bias (e.g., only choosing participants with an income below a certain threshold), or the causal effect may simply go the other direction (e.g., a thermometer is correlated with temperature but certainly does not cause it). In each of these cases, your classmate's procedure might find a causal effect where there is none.
However, if the participants were randomly selected, we can rule out confounders and selection bias. In that case, either age must cause money kept or money kept must cause age. The latter would imply that forcing someone to keep a certain amount of money would somehow change their age. So we can safely assume that age causes money kept.
Note that the causal effect could be "direct" or "indirect". People of different age will have received a different education, have a different amount of wealth, etc., and for these reasons might choose to keep a different amount of the $100. Causal effects via these mediators are still causal effects but are indirect.
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In general you should not assume that correlation implies causality - even in cases where it seems that is the only possible reason.
Consider that there are other things that correlate with age - generational aspects of culture for example. Perhaps these three groups will remain the same even as they all age, but the next generation will buck the trend?
All that being said, you are probably right that younger people are more likely to keep a larger amount, but just be aware there are other possibilities.
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
No. There is a one-way logical relationship between causality and correlation.
Consider correlation a property you calculate on some data, e.g. the most common (linear) correlation as defined by Pearson. For this particular definition of correlation you can create random data points that will have basically of zero or of one without having any kind of causality between them, just by having certain (a)symmetries.
For any definition of correlation you can create a prescription that will show both behaviours: high values of correlation with no mathematical relation in between and low values of correlation, even if there is a fixed expression.
Yes, the relation from "unrelated, but highly correlated" is weaker than "no correlation despite being related". But the only indicator (!) you have if correlation is present is that you have to look harder for an explanation for it.
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Inferring causation from correlation in general is problematic because there may be a number of other reasons for the correlation. For example, spurious correlations due to confounders, selection bias (e.g., only choosing participants with an income below a certain threshold), or the causal effect may simply go the other direction (e.g., a thermometer is correlated with temperature but certainly does not cause it). In each of these cases, your classmate's procedure might find a causal effect where there is none.
However, if the participants were randomly selected, we can rule out confounders and selection bias. In that case, either age must cause money kept or money kept must cause age. The latter would imply that forcing someone to keep a certain amount of money would somehow change their age. So we can safely assume that age causes money kept.
Note that the causal effect could be "direct" or "indirect". People of different age will have received a different education, have a different amount of wealth, etc., and for these reasons might choose to keep a different amount of the $100. Causal effects via these mediators are still causal effects but are indirect.
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Inferring causation from correlation in general is problematic because there may be a number of other reasons for the correlation. For example, spurious correlations due to confounders, selection bias (e.g., only choosing participants with an income below a certain threshold), or the causal effect may simply go the other direction (e.g., a thermometer is correlated with temperature but certainly does not cause it). In each of these cases, your classmate's procedure might find a causal effect where there is none.
However, if the participants were randomly selected, we can rule out confounders and selection bias. In that case, either age must cause money kept or money kept must cause age. The latter would imply that forcing someone to keep a certain amount of money would somehow change their age. So we can safely assume that age causes money kept.
Note that the causal effect could be "direct" or "indirect". People of different age will have received a different education, have a different amount of wealth, etc., and for these reasons might choose to keep a different amount of the $100. Causal effects via these mediators are still causal effects but are indirect.
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Inferring causation from correlation in general is problematic because there may be a number of other reasons for the correlation. For example, spurious correlations due to confounders, selection bias (e.g., only choosing participants with an income below a certain threshold), or the causal effect may simply go the other direction (e.g., a thermometer is correlated with temperature but certainly does not cause it). In each of these cases, your classmate's procedure might find a causal effect where there is none.
However, if the participants were randomly selected, we can rule out confounders and selection bias. In that case, either age must cause money kept or money kept must cause age. The latter would imply that forcing someone to keep a certain amount of money would somehow change their age. So we can safely assume that age causes money kept.
Note that the causal effect could be "direct" or "indirect". People of different age will have received a different education, have a different amount of wealth, etc., and for these reasons might choose to keep a different amount of the $100. Causal effects via these mediators are still causal effects but are indirect.
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
Inferring causation from correlation in general is problematic because there may be a number of other reasons for the correlation. For example, spurious correlations due to confounders, selection bias (e.g., only choosing participants with an income below a certain threshold), or the causal effect may simply go the other direction (e.g., a thermometer is correlated with temperature but certainly does not cause it). In each of these cases, your classmate's procedure might find a causal effect where there is none.
However, if the participants were randomly selected, we can rule out confounders and selection bias. In that case, either age must cause money kept or money kept must cause age. The latter would imply that forcing someone to keep a certain amount of money would somehow change their age. So we can safely assume that age causes money kept.
Note that the causal effect could be "direct" or "indirect". People of different age will have received a different education, have a different amount of wealth, etc., and for these reasons might choose to keep a different amount of the $100. Causal effects via these mediators are still causal effects but are indirect.
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
answered 1 hour ago
Lucas
4,0281529
4,0281529
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In general you should not assume that correlation implies causality - even in cases where it seems that is the only possible reason.
Consider that there are other things that correlate with age - generational aspects of culture for example. Perhaps these three groups will remain the same even as they all age, but the next generation will buck the trend?
All that being said, you are probably right that younger people are more likely to keep a larger amount, but just be aware there are other possibilities.
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In general you should not assume that correlation implies causality - even in cases where it seems that is the only possible reason.
Consider that there are other things that correlate with age - generational aspects of culture for example. Perhaps these three groups will remain the same even as they all age, but the next generation will buck the trend?
All that being said, you are probably right that younger people are more likely to keep a larger amount, but just be aware there are other possibilities.
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
In general you should not assume that correlation implies causality - even in cases where it seems that is the only possible reason.
Consider that there are other things that correlate with age - generational aspects of culture for example. Perhaps these three groups will remain the same even as they all age, but the next generation will buck the trend?
All that being said, you are probably right that younger people are more likely to keep a larger amount, but just be aware there are other possibilities.
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
In general you should not assume that correlation implies causality - even in cases where it seems that is the only possible reason.
Consider that there are other things that correlate with age - generational aspects of culture for example. Perhaps these three groups will remain the same even as they all age, but the next generation will buck the trend?
All that being said, you are probably right that younger people are more likely to keep a larger amount, but just be aware there are other possibilities.
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
answered 2 hours ago
MikeP
1,61646
1,61646
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
No. There is a one-way logical relationship between causality and correlation.
Consider correlation a property you calculate on some data, e.g. the most common (linear) correlation as defined by Pearson. For this particular definition of correlation you can create random data points that will have basically of zero or of one without having any kind of causality between them, just by having certain (a)symmetries.
For any definition of correlation you can create a prescription that will show both behaviours: high values of correlation with no mathematical relation in between and low values of correlation, even if there is a fixed expression.
Yes, the relation from "unrelated, but highly correlated" is weaker than "no correlation despite being related". But the only indicator (!) you have if correlation is present is that you have to look harder for an explanation for it.
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
No. There is a one-way logical relationship between causality and correlation.
Consider correlation a property you calculate on some data, e.g. the most common (linear) correlation as defined by Pearson. For this particular definition of correlation you can create random data points that will have basically of zero or of one without having any kind of causality between them, just by having certain (a)symmetries.
For any definition of correlation you can create a prescription that will show both behaviours: high values of correlation with no mathematical relation in between and low values of correlation, even if there is a fixed expression.
Yes, the relation from "unrelated, but highly correlated" is weaker than "no correlation despite being related". But the only indicator (!) you have if correlation is present is that you have to look harder for an explanation for it.
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
No. There is a one-way logical relationship between causality and correlation.
Consider correlation a property you calculate on some data, e.g. the most common (linear) correlation as defined by Pearson. For this particular definition of correlation you can create random data points that will have basically of zero or of one without having any kind of causality between them, just by having certain (a)symmetries.
For any definition of correlation you can create a prescription that will show both behaviours: high values of correlation with no mathematical relation in between and low values of correlation, even if there is a fixed expression.
Yes, the relation from "unrelated, but highly correlated" is weaker than "no correlation despite being related". But the only indicator (!) you have if correlation is present is that you have to look harder for an explanation for it.
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
No. There is a one-way logical relationship between causality and correlation.
Consider correlation a property you calculate on some data, e.g. the most common (linear) correlation as defined by Pearson. For this particular definition of correlation you can create random data points that will have basically of zero or of one without having any kind of causality between them, just by having certain (a)symmetries.
For any definition of correlation you can create a prescription that will show both behaviours: high values of correlation with no mathematical relation in between and low values of correlation, even if there is a fixed expression.
Yes, the relation from "unrelated, but highly correlated" is weaker than "no correlation despite being related". But the only indicator (!) you have if correlation is present is that you have to look harder for an explanation for it.
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
answered 1 hour ago
cherub
1,270210
1,270210
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
JonnyBravo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
JonnyBravo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
JonnyBravo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
JonnyBravo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f372708%2fcan-you-infer-causality-from-correlation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Normally you can't infer causality from correlation, unless you have a designed experiment.
– user2974951
2 hours ago