Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It means precisely that A causes B, B causes A, C causes both A and B, or the correlation is a statistical fluke. It is intellectually important to be aware of all the options. But "correlation does not imply causation" can be too much of a reflex reaction.

In this particular case, it's easy to imagine how a long commute could cause obesity, divorce, and neck pain; it's very hard to imagine how the causality could run the other way, or what a common cause might be.

The rule could stand to be taken with a grain of common sense.



"it's very hard to imagine how the causality could run the other way, or what a common cause might be."

On the contrary, a (mind that: possible) common cause is even suggested in the article itself: "Perhaps long-distance commuters tend to be poorer or less educated, both conditions that make divorce more common."


No, it could also mean that types of people who A also tend to B, or types of people who C also tend to A and B, and so on.

Correlation != causation.


It is never wrong to refuse to attempt to have an insight.

It is not right either. It is just boring.

Correlation is a starting point, not an ending point.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: