I implore you: think in Correlations!
In high school biology classes, my teacher urged us to identify our "A-ha" moments; those times when a concept would suddenly click and forever changed the way you saw the world.For me, one such moment was during my first dissection; putting my forcept down the frog's throat, into the espohagus and through the stomach, I realized for the first time that bodies do not contain bundles of random organs floating around; they're all connected, it makes sense, and furthermore the understanding of it's workings lies within my own grasp.
During my college education, one of my top "A-ha" moments occurred in a Psychology Statistics course, as well as philosophy and other psychology courses). The idea: "Correlation is not causation."
Let's define our terms. Causation is much like it sounds: the phenomenon where one item brings forth another. It seems simple, right? Eating causes satiety; kicking the ball causes the ball to move away from you; etc etc (assuming, of course, you don't take Kant's stance, which would mean you believe we NEVER know with certainty that anything causes another thing; for you people, my whole discussion will be useless!)."
Correlation," in contrast, simply refers to the phoenomenon where two things tend to occur at the same time, or in the same place. Lightbulbs are correlated with lamps, intaking more calories than you output is correlated with weight gain, umbrellas are correlated with rain, etc.
It sounds simple as well, right? No one would ever argue that umbrellas cause rain, or that a lack of a cast causes a foot to be broken, and yet...Causation and correlation are chronically confused, well, everywhere in life, from the editorial page of the newspaper to the sports locker room to the corporate board meeting.
How can this be, when it seems so obvious in the above examples? It's because when we move away from descriptions of physical items, it's very hard to identify which situations involve causality and which involve correlation.
The "null hypothesis," or the general assumption one should make, is that phenomena are correlated rather than caused. Yet, I often observe the exact opposite when I'm reading/hearing the news or even listening to people describe events in their own lives: for whatever reason, our minds seem to want to attribute causes rather than seeing correlations.
For example: a well-known correlation in the USA today is that of race and violent crime. Minority status is positively correlated with violent crime (meaning violent crimes are perpetrated more by minorities than their non-minority counterparts), but from that statistic should/can we conclude that minority status causes one to commit violent crimes?
Absolutely not, because the two items are linked by a third, more important factor: socioeconomic status. The phenomenon where two items are said to be caused by each other but are really linked by a third cause is called the "Neglect of Common Cause" or "Joint Effect."
The cool thing is, with statistical methodology cause and effect can often be teased apart (although I'll refrain from going into the math right now because, frankly, it's a Sunday morning and doing math on a Sunday morning is just wrong!).
However, it's important to remember that in many cases we can't tease apart causality from correlation because the only way to do so would be to take two identical things (let's use people, because that's the most interesting for me) and expose them to identical environments except for one distinguishing factor.
For example, the most perfect way to test whether sugar intake really does make kids more hyperactive would, in the ideal world, take two identical people who had been exposed to the same environmental forces their whole lives (which really isn't possible because conditions starting in the womb are never the same for both twin) and one day decide to solely change whether one would be exposed to sugar and the other not, and then measure hyperactivity (which you'd need an operational definition of).
Of course, this isn't possible, so researchers get around this by "random sampling." The idea is that you minimize the effects of potential environmental differences (such as whether a child in a sugar-hyperactivity study had eaten sugary cereal the morning of the test) by randomly choose a group of subjects (your "sample") chosen entirely by chance. By random sampling, you're equally likely to have a child who's eaten sugary cereal (which could be a "confounding factor," or something that gets in the way of establishing a link) in each group.
So, why am I babbling so much about this? Because when we're going about our daily lives, making causal attributions all day (anything from "I'm in a bad mood because I'm pre-menstrual" to "the Chinese economy is doing well because a certain politician is in power") we simply can't establish causation.
I wouldn't be writing about it if I thought it was simply an academic problem. It's an enormous social problem because in explaining things in simple terms of causation, we can be lulled into a sense of complacency and simplicity about our fellow humans, particularly those of groups different to us. I won't go into it now, but psych studies have found that people think more deeply about alternate causes for negative behavior about people from an "in-group" than an "out-group."
So, if I'm reacting to a recent finding that women in their 20s are (and i'm just making this up) less likely to cooperate with peers than men of the same age, I will probably consider alternate explanations almost reflexively. However, if the opposite claim is made, I might simply shrug and say, "Men...what can you do?" (As a fun side note, the opposite also happens, in that we often blindly accept positive claims about our "in-group" but think of alternate explanations for positive claims about an "out-group.")
This particular example doesn't necessarily have huge reprocussions, but what about when we take examples of ethnic groups and religions? Assuming the above principle is true, if a friend or trusted source explains someone's negative trait by their membership in, say, the Islamic faith, we are generally less likely to persue alternate explanations (such as that the trait is just part of their individual personality, or comes from their job, or their association with another friend).
The basic idea I'm getting at is that when we're explaining phenomena in the world around us, whether it's as personal as a sibling's sudden warmth ("do they want something from me? do they have an illness which is making them suddenly see the world in perspective? is it because they are happy in their relationship?") or as broad as a nation's obesidy epidemic ("is it from lack of exercise? fast food? changing ideal body types?"), it's not only more useful to think in correlations, it's simply more true.
To end, I'd like to provide an example of when this is done particularly well; not surprisingly, it's from "The Economist." I was very skeptical when I started the article, but it provides a good example of when considering the correlation v causation problem is done well: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5327652&tranMode=none | posted by Cheryl, 1/22/2006 10:57:00 AM | 0 comments |
Further evidence of former claim...
I rest my case.Cutest human being EVER!
I hope my kids look like my baby sis some day!
| posted by Cheryl, 1/19/2006 04:19:00 PM
| 0 comments
|
My sister is the cutest being on the planet
ok, so I'm working on a slideshow for my sister's upcoming wedding, and I'm having a total blast looking at the old pictures of her...have you EVER seen such an adorable child? I wish I could have her back at that age and play with her for a day!
| posted by Cheryl, 1/19/2006 04:17:00 PM
| 0 comments
|
Do you like?
I'm considering purchasing a pair of glasses like this - what do you think? My glasses now are very thin and small with a frameless bottom and thin black frame on the top. I would like glasses that have a bit more substance, but that don't overwhelm my face, if that makes sense! I know i'm making a funny face, but this is the only pic that turned out well - please let me know if you think i should invest in glasses like these (my current ones are also bothering me because they are too light and don't stay on my face correctly).Sorry this post is so self-absorbed, hehe!
| posted by Cheryl, 1/11/2006 05:11:00 PM
| 1 comments
|
Ask and ye shall receive...a good cell phone plan!?!
Real quick, as I'm trying to make a 10:00 bedtime (thus furthering my endeavor to become a grandma by the time I'm 28 ): tonight I witnessed a truly amazing human interaction.The interaction occurred over cell phone and consisted of Suraj ("concerned boyfriend," as he put it) and a Sprint PCS operator. The subject: a ridiculously complicated and seemingly illogical phone bill (exacerbated by a confusion over what happened to my plan once I got off of the "vacation plan" while i was in Europe - I thought i continued my old one, while my bill reflected not only a more expensive plan, but i was being charged in advance for the January1-30 period!).
Anyway, the point isn't to bore you with the details of my cell phone plan. The point is that Suraj basically told the person on the phone about the confusion, was assertive and confident, constantly clarified what was going on and made sure the Sprint employee knew what he wanted, and in the end he GOT what he wanted!
I think when I talk on the phone, even to complete strangers or people who don't have my best interests at heart, I still feel this absolutely crazy desire to please them or be "nice." Why is this? I've seen over and over again how far being assertive can get you - my mom constantly got upgrades on things growing up, and when I answered the phones at the Ops and Maintenance at the hospital I observed how the annoying, pestering people often got their ways over the passive, "nice" ones.
I must keep this in mind in the future! | posted by Cheryl, 1/10/2006 09:17:00 PM | 0 comments |
Sports and cameras
While watching the INCREDIBLY EXCITING Rose Bowl/National Title match tonight between USC and UT, I wondered for about the one-millionth time why it's necessary for SO many photographers to spill over near the end zone.While Vince Young rolled in for yet another thrilling touch down, I'm embarassed to admit that I found my gaze shift to focus on the throng of 2-foot long lenses carving his path like clunky giraffes in high heels!
Why can't all the news outlets just pay 5 or 6 extraordinarily awesome camera-people for their images? They all end up looking the same, anyway, right?
On a different note, it's often disturbing how the players often are barraged by cameras before they can truly share the moment with their coaches and teams. You might call me a hypocrite, but I would argue that i would get the same enjoyment if the camera were further away and i was watching the lead players celebrate with each other rather than cheezing it up with ESPN!
Of course, to play devil's advocate with myself, one could argue that the media can heighten one's excitement. I suppose it depends on the person. At any rate, I was majorly impressed by the poise of UT-Austin Offensive MVP Vince Young. His posture and interaction with the presenter were so loose and comfortable, and he seemed to genuinely be enjoying himself. That kind of composure is so refreshing to see!
WHAT AN AMAZING GAME!
Now, if only our country got this excited about soccer games... | posted by Cheryl, 1/04/2006 09:51:00 PM | 0 comments |
Superheroes and Crooks
As I stood in line at the post office today, a question arose: is it a coincidence that my ability to enjoy corrupt politicians, businessmen/women, and humans in general being brought to justice has increased in direct proportion to the number of Superhero v Evil Villain mega-movies on the market lately?Real life, fantastically enough, with the Enron scandal and now Abramoff pleading guilty (see http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.plea/ - talk about an evil villain picture, that is right out of the Pink Panther) has become more unbelievable than the movies...this has probably occurred to millions of people, but it struck a particular chord in me today.
A real quick tangent, if I may get on my soapbox for a moment: this is further proof of the universal applicability of children's stories and fables, which draw things in slightly more black and white terms than we typically expect from normal life but make us ponder questions of good versus evil (which, fantastically enough, life tends to follow at times). | posted by Cheryl, 1/03/2006 05:08:00 PM | 0 comments |
Swimming
So, i'm finally taking my doctor's advice and replacing running with lower impact sports like swimming and bicycling. Here's my assessment of the relative merits of these sports thus far:Running
Pros: It's free; you can do it ANYWHERE and in most any weather; feels incredible
Cons: Pound, pound, pounding on the joints can't be good if I'd like to walk in 50 years
Swimming
Pros: Meeting nice, little old ladies in the locker room and in the lanes, thus satiating my need for community; softer on the joints; lanes allow for easy assessment of improvement
Cons: I HATE CHLORINE! CURSE YOU, AQUA SCUM! Here's a glimpse into my mind as attempt to breathe & get from one side of the lane to the other: "Breathe out through the nose, keep your chest down, oh shoot i need to breathe, get head out, aah my ear's filling with water now, don't twist your body across the lane while you turn your head up, WHAT, you call that a breath of AIR, keep head down, oh yeah keep kicking, oh shoot I need to BREATHE again!"
Bicycling
Pros: Covering vast distances with novel views; helmet and foot gear make one feel hard core; the thrill of going down a hill rarely dies; less impactful on the joints than running
Cons: Often involves some element of putting oneself near cars; annoying to store bike and take it in the car; have to work out longer for same cardio as running; hills hurt knees at times
Anyway, I pondered the relative merits of these sports while swimming at Mercer Island's Mary Wayte pool this morning. I love the learning curve when you try a new hobby - each time I swim, I feel better and better!
Here's what I learned today: a) it's helpful to think of myself working with the water, using it to my advantage, rather than just plunging through the water, and b) it feels much better if I breathe in often and remember to breathe out while i'm underwater!
I'm looking forward to more swimming, especially with the help of my pal Kate Uvelli, and cycling in the upcoming year! Tomorrow I start working at the UW Medical Center in my old office at the Operations and Maintenance Department - I can't wait! | posted by Cheryl, 1/02/2006 02:44:00 PM | 0 comments |
Dances, apologies, hearts
Old habits die hard...when I first started swing dancing, I used to apologize to every "lead" (usualy the male) I'd dance with. I'd joke that although it's a standard assumption that follower (usually the female) mistakes are "always the lead's fault," I could prove that adage wrong!Of course, the leads would assure me that it was ok and that I didn't "need" to apologize. I thought they were just being nice, but after a while I noticed how distracting it could be if I constantly verbalized my mistakes! Dancing, and partner dancing in particular, are forms of communication in and of themselves; if we are not on the same page, this typically is something both people feel and attempt to counteract without words.
Anyway, tonight I danced for the second time in about 3 months, so I found my old habit of apologizing creeping up again! Of course, I don't think that people should be entirely mute while they dance, or forgo verbal communication whatsoever, so it was hard to strike a balance!
The turnaround point was when I danced with this man whom I wasn't so sure about at the beginning...he was a lot older, and that can be often be a high risk, high reward situation from what I've experienced.
I have no idea what song we were dancing to, but it was definitely "bluesey" rather than the typical swing standards I'm used to...the female vocalist had what I'd call "soul" (if I didn't think me using that word would make the word itself less cool)!
Anyway, he was obviously a very experienced dancer just from his posture and musicality, but the BEST part was that he was just so INTO the song and the dance! He was closing his eyes at times, humming along to the music, and making slight changes in gesture or posture to go along with the subtle changes in music.
I started to apologize when I got off beat for a second, but I realized something: this guy did not CARE! He was having a great time, and I could as well, so long as I gave up the idea that I had to perform each move "right."
Constantly assessing one's performance as "good" or "bad" can catapault one from the "flow state," which I discussed in a blog in October, to anxiety and other (often unnecessary) emotions. I decided to just feel the music and enjoy my time out there!
Although I enjoyed the moment, I did allow myself to burst into laughter or blurt out a sorry upon making particularly noticeable mistakes, such as stepping on the lead's foot or flailing my arms around like a penguin; at times, these can actually bond the lead and follow, because the physical connection has already been broken in some way. By laughing, you sort of reset, and go out on the floor again.
Being at the Century Ballroom brought back memories not just of swing but of dancing Salsa as well...Suraj and I went there on our 4th date EVER as well as many subsequent dates! I can't wait for him to get back from Aruba in a week, he's been gone far too long in San Fransisco, NYC and the Caribbean. I regret the times I was uptight when we danced; I hope I can remember the lesson from tonight and let loose even MORE than I normally do! | posted by Cheryl, 1/02/2006 01:01:00 AM | 1 comments |
