If correlation doesn't imply causation, then what does?

if the effect is present in every situation where the cause is, and a path can be traced from the cause to the effect

/thread

Third or fourth variable that is correlated to both variables being compared

These are the necessary conditions for causation

1) Correlation
2) Logical placement of cause and effect in time
3) Ruled out that there is not a confounding variable
4) Theoretical foundation

Cause: starting a thread on Veeky Forums
Effect: attracting shitposters.

All factors listed in are satisfied;

Why does something have to imply causation?
I see that as a thing in itself. You can't assume a relation of cause and effect between two objects until you actually see it.

>brainlets ramble wrong answers with no sources
Read this OP: ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r350.pdf

>brainlet
What's your iq?

>relies on a single metric
You're not gonna make it user. Sad!

>single metric
I am a failure academically and I got a 139 iq when psychologists checked my high potential performance in HS. How the fuck do people manage to study when I didn't study in my whole life? I'm 21 yo already. I'm fucking up my third attempt at a degree.

You should be moonwalking right to convocation with that 139 (if it was real)

Most people can't deal with admitting that they're average
t. Average IQ grad student

Have a long think about how much better you'd be doing if the 139 was real and move forward anyway knowing that it isn't. That's how you learn to study.

Well, it was real when i was 15 years old. I still have no problem with understanding shit.

The problem is that I don't work. How do I solve this shit? I still have to do some graphs for geology but I'm too lazy to even start. I only got 5 days for such job; I think I'm capable to do it, but in the end I fail. I never learn.

Aaaand /thread.

My point exactly. I'm not saying you're lying about the IQ evaluation. But with a 139 IQ, you should be able to solve your motivational problems.

Go do your graphs.

How does iq solve motivational problems? I've been a pseudoneet and social failure too.

Because you'd be smart enough to realize
1. You have work to do
2. It's important
3. You need to do it
4. A way to motivate yourself

The smart but lazy meme is just a crutch so people with 110ish IQs can maintain that they have 130-140 IQs even though they perform nowhere near this level.

1. This doesn't specify when to do it
2. This is irrelevant, if i'm going to do it anyway
3. I don' t want to think about necessities, i feel bad about the future
4. I just have to do it, i don't need anything else

I already showed you my 139 iq. I don't have problems understanding the shit professors say, even though I don't even try. I have failed 3 TIMES already.

How do I fix myself?

Correlation + a theory that is internally consistent and explains all observed aspects of the correlation

deduction

... Finally.

>4. I just have to do it, i don't need anything else
Not even the same guy, but motivation plays a big part in doing stuff. You just can't do something if you don't feel like it.

>motivation
How do you even measure motivation, retard? How do i know i'm motivated? How do i know i just want to stay playing wow or dota or fapping or eating or listening to music or watching anime instead of making any effort?

For every correlation, there are infinitely many theories that are internally consistent, explain all observed aspects of the correlation and are wrong.

>he thinks magic and technology are any different
b-let

>How do you even measure motivation, retard?
You don't have to measure it with much precision, just enough so you know when you are motivated or not. But you can get that intuitively. If you can't, you're really overthinking it.

>How do i know i'm motivated?
When you are willing to do something. That's pretty much all one can describe about it. See the intuition part above.

>How do i know i just want to stay playing wow or dota or fapping or eating or listening to music or watching anime instead of making any effort?
You just know, because it's pretty obvious. Again: see the intuition part above.

You don't have to know exactly how motivated you are and what you feel when you are motivated. You just have to know how to prompt it and use it in your favor.

>The smart but lazy meme is just a crutch so people with 110ish IQs can maintain that they have 130-140 IQs even though they perform nowhere near this level

No, the "smart but lazy is a meme" meme is a crutch so people can pretend we live in a meritocratic civilization where people get what they deserve, or earn according to their merits. You'd psychologically collapse if you were forced to recognize that there are in fact many very smart people who are impaired or prevented from reaching their potential due to various causes unrelated to their raw intelligence. The majority of hard workers are in fact morons, fundamentally because they aren't impacted by the countless philosophical questions, musings, or anxieties which would prevent them from working hard. Idiots are more likely to unequivocally internalize the notion that "hard work" is it in itself a virtue; you can see this commonly among working class religious types, which are typically romanticized by the media for their simple, "admirable" naivety.

Then of course there's my personal experiences and relationships with idiots who work hard and borderline-genius types who do the bare minimum to survive, because work is for sheep and wasting your life so that you have money in the bank at 50 (which is past the point where your life has value) is hilariously backwards.

I could write for days about how stupid you are using simple logic alone. Such a stunning combination of smugness and ignorance.

you have to establish a relationship between a control parameter and dependent parameter.

95% or 99% your criteria please!

The phrase is just a reminder to apply common sense to your statistical results. It's been hijacked as the go-to "argument" by everybody who wants to deny statistical evidence, be it about climate change or racial differences.

Nothing implies causation, you create causative models and then test them. Correlation can be used as a guideline and verification for these causative models.

Correlation isn't causation and it is never sufficient.

>"I'm just going to redefine what "association" and "causation" mean so that it fits my theory" -the pdf
Amazing philosophical effort right there.

"Correlation does not imply causation" is only true for the strict use of "implies" where it is equivalent to "must be the case that...".

All scientific evidence is correlative. The principal role of the scientist is to design experiments such that causation is the only reasonable explanation for observed correlation.

142 iq here, working in retail, please Christ save me I never do what I'm supposed to

I can agree with you, but important things getting done doesn't necessarily mean that one worked hard to get there.

well boo hoo, what do you want me to say, you can't no nuffin?

This is very inspirational to me as I'm finally starting to get off my ass and read, I mean actual lectures not just getting drunk and throwing on cosmos on Netflix or something. Thanks, I'm going to read Feynman now, even if what you said was to basically belittle someone lmao