Causation and Correlation: confusion or simplification

 

     We often encounter statements in the media of the nature "X causes Y". "G is the cause of Q". "You need to stop H or Q will happen."

     Of course, the rejoinder often is "She did H and Q never happened." or "I have Xed all of my life and Y has never entered into the picture."

     This isn't to say that X, G, or H are not things that are detrimental to health, or the economy, or the environment, or whatever other category it may be applied to. It is just a matter that, as is true of many other situations applied to health, politics, religion, and so forth the use of the word "cause" is not accurate.

     Simplification is not, in itself, a bad thing. Simplification can help in describing something for a wide audience with widely different backgrounds and experiences. Simplification should be recognized as such and not be considered "the whole truth". As mentioned in a prior blog, the Body Mass Index (BMI) number is a good analysis of healthy weight for about 80% of the population. And, as long as the 20% is not penalized via use of the BMI, it is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, easily obtained numbers often get misused -- on purpose or out of lack of effort.

     As mentioned in the previous blog, if you take two large, truly random, groups of people then you can statistically compare the groups when one group has something done and the "control group" has not. This group had H. The control group did not have H. Five percent more of the group with H developed Q compared to the group. Is five percent a significant difference? It depends on group sizes and confidence in the comparability of the two groups. Beyond that, the actual number where it becomes "statistically significant" should be done by a statistician (which I am not).

     At this point, perhaps it is determined that it IS statistically significant. The media, in their desire to inform but strong tendency to oversimplify, will shout "H causes Q!" But what about all those other people in either group that did not develop Q?

     If I hit an unshielded thumb, placed on a concrete slab with no protections (note the careful listing of conditions) and hit it hard with a hammer, it will cause pain and it will cause an injury (of varying seriousness depending on additional factors). In this situation, since it will happen to anybody who is in this scenario, we can say "hitting an unprotected thumb on a concrete slab with a hammer causes pain and injury". No exceptions, if you do A it causes B.

     Note, there can always be something that is not specified that might make this not true. What if the thumb was part of a strong prosthetic hand? What if the concrete slab had not set yet and the hand and thumb went into the concrete when the hammer hit? But in the everyday world, you can say that hitting the thumb with a hammer causes pain and injury. You can say that the earth's rotation causes the appearance of the sun coming up over the horizon to the east. In each case, causing is (for all practical purposes) 100% true for the specified situation.

     In these situations it is also very important to be specific. For example, there is the statement that "burning fossil fuels causes an increase in carbon dioxide and other waste products in the atmosphere". Seems obviously true, doesn't it? But, what if the factory had a carbon dioxide "scrubber" on the stack and a reclamation chamber prior to release of particulates to the atmosphere? So, a much more accurate (and something that can be addressed in more ways) statement is "burning fossil fuels without adequate filtering and reclamation causes an increase in carbon dioxide and other waste products in the atmosphere". It isn't the burning of the fossil fuels that is the foundational problem -- it is the non-cleansed release of the  exhaust products. Possible solutions increase. We can change fuels or we can install filtration and reclamation remedies.

     In the situation where the group with H had Q develop 5% more often than the group without H, it is NOT true that "H causes Q" no matter how much the media, or others, want to simplify the situation. What we have here is a correlation. A correlation can be insignificant (below the threshold of what the statisticians consider to be significant), significant (at threshold), moderately significant, or strongly significant between H and Q developing. But it cannot accurately be said that "H causes Q".

     And, the inaccurate use of cause in saying "H causes Q" reduces credibility of the message.

Economics and the Meaning of Money

    I usually look at the economy as a form of applied sociology. Money is only worth something if people believe that it is worth something. This applies equally to gold and jewels as much as it applies to pieces of paper with people's pictures printed on it. In a similar fashion, money is distributed according to the rules (explicit or implicit) that people decide upon.

    A barter system works when each person (or family) is capable of doing most things needed for survival on their own. They then trade things that they have in excess for things that others have in excess. I give you an extra chicken and you give me a bushel of potatoes. I give you a length of material that I have woven and you give me a chair. Barter is a mixture of labor, materials, difficulty, and time combined into value.

    When each person can NOT do most things they need for survival, the barter system becomes very inconvenient. It is necessary to keep records/charts of equivalences. One type A chair is equal to two meters of cloth. Two type B chairs are equal to one type A chair. Ten chickens are equal to one meter of cloth. This complexity arises out of the need for each family unit to trade for many different types of things. Once this happens, the next step is to equate the value to something in common. Ten seashells represent the value of one chicken. A meter of cloth is equivalent to 100 seashells. Every item of value can be represented by a certain number of seashells. This representation of value is called money.

    Once the value of work and things have been "abstracted" into money, it is very easy to lose sight of real value. The work done by an experienced, talented teacher is probably worth more to society than that of a software developer -- but the software developer probably makes a higher salary. In "capitalistic" societies, the control of money is considered to have value in itself. That is, if I possess one million seashells then I no longer have to produce anything of value myself -- the circumstances (earned and saved, gifted, or inherited) of having the seashells allows me to distribute some portion to other people who then produce the actual value (plus more for me to hold).

    Within "new age" philosophy, it is popular to think that the economy is no longer a "zero sum" game. That is, each and every person, can earn as much money as she/he wants -- that there is not a "fixed pot" of X seashells in the pot and each can have as much as they want without reducing the amount that others are able to have. That's a happy philosophy but is it true?

    Although money makes lots of games possible with the distribution and use -- the basis of money still goes back to production and use. If 100 people each want a fish but there are only 50 fish then the value of each fish will rise until the 50 people who most want a fish have them and the other 50 do not have them. If 100 people want a fish and there are 1000 fish, then the value should (the concept of money makes direct value difficult if not impossible) be equated to that combination of labor, materials, difficulty and time mentioned above. An abundance of resources (fish) causes value to go back to basics.

    Our global economy makes distribution of resources extremely unequal. Most people estimate, however, that there are enough resources (food, labor, energy) to support everyone currently on the planet. The fact that that does not happen is a problem with distribution and allocation. But, there is still a limit. Perhaps at twice the population there would NOT be enough for everyone (in an ideal world). This argues that it is a "fixed pot" -- there is a limit of resources to be distributed. In order to eliminate the fixed pot, it is necessary to get rid of the limitations of resources.

    Is there a way to eliminate the limitations of resources? I will look at that possibility in the next blog.