Skip to main content

A Lesson About Correlation

Image result for Dilbert

One of the Dilbert cartoons that came up on my day-to-day desk calendar recently offers a valuable lesson. Correlation does not imply causation.

Usually, the pointy-haired boss plays the stooge in his exchanges with Dilbert, but in this case its the boss who brings the point home.

Dilbert tells him, "Studies show that companies with a high level of trust in employees also perform the best."

Dilbert is presumably hoping that the boss will infer from this correlation of performance and trust that there is a causative link, and that the boss ought to trust Dilbert more, thereby allowing their common employer to reap the rewards.

Instead, the boss acutely responds, "If you ever start performing well, I'll trust you, too."

Ah, yes, one of the problems with that sort of causal argument (but only one of them) is that the causal arrow is easily reversed. Good one, boss.


Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…