You hate him.
We know.
Bad Thinkers Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
We know.
And my entourage checks in...
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
They're here to bump your threads.
They're bumptious, that's for sure. :chuckle:
(Troll runs for a dictionary)
If they're interested...
https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-calculate-the-correlation-coefficient-3126228
https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-calculate-the-correlation-coefficient-3126228
Nope!
That's just not what it means! Sorry but it just isn't what it means.
It is sufficient to cause one to ask whether there are genes that mediate the development of it but, by itself, it isn't even evidence that genes have anything to do with it. It could just as easily be that thinking in a certain way causes certain parts of your brain to grow more (or less) than they would otherwise. And, as I said before, it could absolutely be simply a coincidence much like the very high correlation between those who clip their finger nails and those have caught a cold. Virtually everyone who has done the latter has also done the former. One might even say, by your logic, that one is a predictor of the other.
No, it just doesn't!
Do you clip your finger nails?
Yes!
Well, you'll probably catch a cold at some point.
Yes!
Well, you'll probably catch a cold at some point.
See how it doesn't work?
This same exact error of logic is why coffee (or chocolate or coconut oil or whatever) is bad for you one day and the next day it's good for you and then next week it'll give you cancer and the week after that it fights cancer.
Correlation flat out does not imply causation - period.
There is a perfect one to one correlation between drinking water and death. Everything that drinks water dies - everything.
All such studies are junk science when applied in this manner.
The data isn't meaningless but it just doesn't mean what most people take it to mean. What it means is that there is reason to investigate further in a particular direction. But until you know WHY they are correlated, the fact that the correlation exists is not very useful except perhaps in very general terms.
No, the predictability is just another way of pointing out the correlation.
The problem is that you are using the predictability (i.e. the correlation) to imply a causal of effect from one to the other and that is simply a fallacious way of thinking.
It is, however, precisely the way that conspiracy theorists think! Any correlation, no matter how slight, is taken as strong evidence for whatever it is they need it to be evidence for and no matter how many times you tell them that correlation doesn't imply causation, they steadfastly refuse to drop it as an argument in favor of their favorite theory, doctrine, conspiracy or whatever.
Clete
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
They're here to bump your threads.
squeaky used to play the same game you're playing here :chuckle:
Correlation equals causation is the Darwinists' only play.
That's what a correlation is. Predictability, one with the other. Causation isn't an issue WRT correlation as a predictor.
For example, the frequency of pneumonia in Argentina is positively correlated with the consumption of iced tea in New York. Causation isn't the issue; it's winter in Argentina when it's summer in New York, and more pneumonia in winter,and more iced tea consumed in the summer.
But if we know during a particular time, that pneumonia is up in Argentina, we will be very confident that at the same time, more iced tea will be consumed in New York. Even if one does not cause the other.
It's a good predictor. Just as these details of neuroanatomy are good predictors for political outlook, even if one does not cause the other. And if one does, it doesn't matter whether thinking liberal thoughts makes you ACG more robust or if a more robust ACG makes you think liberal thoughts. It's still a good predictor.
You're right. But whatever it is, it's still a good predictor.
No. And you've told us why:
No,that would be like saying "if you have an ACG,you're a liberal and if you have an amygdala, you're a conservative." Everyone SFAIK has one of each, just as everyone trims his fingernails and has had a cold. But if there's a strong correlation between how often you trim your nails and how often you get colds, then we have a predictor.
Do you have an anterior cingulate gyrus?
You almost certainly have an amygdala.
So, by your reasoning, you're a conservative and a liberal.
See how it doesn't work?
This same exact error of logic is why people think that correlation can't tell you anything, unless you can establish causation.
In fact, as you see, a strong correlation is a good predictor, even if you can't say that one factor causes the other. They can be both due to a third fact.
But one is still a good predictor of the other. That's what correlation is.
If a correlation is a strong one, predictive power can be great. Consider this figure, from data produced by a 1992 study at the University of Illinois. Researchers asked 56,000 students about their drinking habits and grades, to see how drinking might correlate with performance in school.
Any type of correlation can be used to make a prediction. However, a correlation does not tell us about the underlying cause of a relationship.
All we know from the Illinois data is that drinking was negatively correlated with grade-point average. The possible explanations are many.
Perhaps (1) alcohol makes people stupid, or (2) higher-achieving students are more likely to lie and say they do not drink even if they do, or (3) the students who tend to drink tend to be poorer students to begin with, or (4) people who are hung-over from a drinking binge tend to skip class, or (5) students in academic trouble drink in order to drown their sorrows after receiving bad grades.
There could be dozens of possible explanations for the correlation. The number of possible cause-effect explanations for any correlation is limited only by your imagination and ingenuity in thinking up possible explanations for an observed relationship.
For purposes of making a prediction, the underlying reason for a correlation does not matter. As long as the correlation is stable–lasting into the future–one can use it to make predictions. What a correlation does not tell you is why two things tend to go together.
https://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch01-psychology-and-science/correlation-and-prediction.html
You're very correct on that. But you don't need causation for a strong correlation to be a good predictor.
My entourage is no longer visible at all. They went from Trolls to ghosts.
That's what a correlation is. Predictability, one with the other. Causation isn't an issue WRT correlation as a predictor.
For example, the frequency of pneumonia in Argentina is positively correlated with the consumption of iced tea in New York. Causation isn't the issue; it's winter in Argentina when it's summer in New York, and more pneumonia in winter,and more iced tea consumed in the summer.
But if we know during a particular time, that pneumonia is up in Argentina, we will be very confident that at the same time, more iced tea will be consumed in New York. Even if one does not cause the other.
It's a good predictor. Just as these details of neuroanatomy are good predictors for political outlook, even if one does not cause the other. And if one does, it doesn't matter whether thinking liberal thoughts makes you ACG more robust or if a more robust ACG makes you think liberal thoughts. It's still a good predictor.
You're right. But whatever it is, it's still a good predictor.
No. And you've told us why:
No,that would be like saying "if you have an ACG,you're a liberal and if you have an amygdala, you're a conservative." Everyone SFAIK has one of each, just as everyone trims his fingernails and has had a cold. But if there's a strong correlation between how often you trim your nails and how often you get colds, then we have a predictor.
Do you have an anterior cingulate gyrus?
You almost certainly have an amygdala.
So, by your reasoning, you're a conservative and a liberal.
See how it doesn't work?
This same exact error of logic is why people think that correlation can't tell you anything, unless you can establish causation.
In fact, as you see, a strong correlation is a good predictor, even if you can't say that one factor causes the other. They can be both due to a third fact.
But one is still a good predictor of the other. That's what correlation is.
If a correlation is a strong one, predictive power can be great. Consider this figure, from data produced by a 1992 study at the University of Illinois. Researchers asked 56,000 students about their drinking habits and grades, to see how drinking might correlate with performance in school.
Any type of correlation can be used to make a prediction. However, a correlation does not tell us about the underlying cause of a relationship.
All we know from the Illinois data is that drinking was negatively correlated with grade-point average. The possible explanations are many.
Perhaps (1) alcohol makes people stupid, or (2) higher-achieving students are more likely to lie and say they do not drink even if they do, or (3) the students who tend to drink tend to be poorer students to begin with, or (4) people who are hung-over from a drinking binge tend to skip class, or (5) students in academic trouble drink in order to drown their sorrows after receiving bad grades.
There could be dozens of possible explanations for the correlation. The number of possible cause-effect explanations for any correlation is limited only by your imagination and ingenuity in thinking up possible explanations for an observed relationship.
For purposes of making a prediction, the underlying reason for a correlation does not matter. As long as the correlation is stable–lasting into the future–one can use it to make predictions. What a correlation does not tell you is why two things tend to go together.
https://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch...rediction.html
You're very correct on that. But you don't need causation for a strong correlation to be a good predictor.
That was a long winded way of agreeing with everything I said.
I'll admit that I could have been clearer but my point wasn't that corrolations cannot be used as predictors. My issue is when you use the correlation to imply a causal relationship. To avoid such a misunderstanding of my point I specifically said,..
-
The data isn't meaningless but it just doesn't mean what most people take it to mean. What it means is that there is reason to investigate further in a particular direction. But until you know WHY they are correlated, the fact that the correlation exists is not very useful except perhaps in very general terms.
No, the predictability is just another way of pointing out the correlation.
The problem is that you are using the predictability (i.e. the correlation) to imply a causal of effect from one to the other and that is simply a fallacious way of thinking.
No, the predictability is just another way of pointing out the correlation.
The problem is that you are using the predictability (i.e. the correlation) to imply a causal of effect from one to the other and that is simply a fallacious way of thinking.
The entire point of this was, I thought, to discuss the fallacious ways in which conspiracy theorists think. Your point seemed to be that conspiratorial thinking is caused by some aberant brian growth. If that's your point then my objection stands. If it isn't then just what is your point with all this anyway?
Clete
Barbarian seems to be able to see things he can't see. :AMR:
I kinda suspected, but I wasn't sure.
And my point was that they are good predictors regardless of causation, so we seem to be on the same page.
Good point, and we also agree on that. The key is that such correlations don't necessarily imply causation. It's a good hint that they might. So more work needs to be done to see. Often, as you suggested, the two factors might both be caused by some other factor. Or sometimes, one does actually cause the other. We all know of such cases, and I suppose that's why people tend to see correlations as showing causation.
No. First, conspiratorial thinking can be enhanced by a more robust amygdala, but remember, that such thinking can be adaptive, if there really are people conspiring. The Russian interference in the 2016 election was such a case. And while a robust ACG might be very useful in working out a decent trading deal between nations, it might be the wrong thing to do, if the other nation has hostile intentions. Both of these functions exist precisely because they are useful in survival.
We aren't talking about "aberrant brain growth"; the factors in the studies show normal variations in brain structure, not some extreme deviations.
The old adage "liberals are open and friendly because they think everyone is pretty much like them, and conservatives are suspicious and surly for the same reason" is slanted and not entirely true, but there's a bit of truth in there, also.
What I said. Details of neuroanatomy turn out to be better predictors of political outlook than family background, which is itself a very good predictor. Some people are more receptive to conspiracy theories than other people.
And perhaps world history would be quite different if Nevile Chamberlain had a larger amygdala. Or if Hideki Tojo had a larger ACG.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
My kneejerk answer when first reading the thread title was, "Because people who think they're so much smarter than the people are who believe conspiracy theories aren't smart enough to talk the people who believe conspiracy theories out of believing conspiracy theories". That's my God's truth, honest to God, initial reaction to reading the thread title for the first time. I'm just being honest.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
And breathing. Everybody who's died so far used to breathe all the time. I highly recommend avoiding breathing, if you want to avoid death. It's highly correlated, statistically.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and if it's correlated, then it's a predictor :dizzy:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Obviously! Why else would it correlate! Must be cause-and-effect!