: TER General Board Discussion : Correlation is not necessarily causation

mrfisher 115 Reviews 1803 reads

posted 9 years ago

1 / 11

More quasi-scientific support for our ventures....

-- Modified on 7/17/2017 8:25:50 AM

-- Modified on 7/17/2017 8:26:52 AM

Related Link: mens sana in corpore sano

coeur-de-lion 400 Reviews 61 reads

posted 9 years ago

2 / 11

They forgot one . . . .

It stems the accumulation of fat in your wallet.

mrfisher 115 Reviews 57 reads

posted 9 years ago

3 / 11

and stimulates the economy eom

END OF MESSAGE

micktoz 43 Reviews 66 reads

posted 9 years ago

4 / 11

Is that some sort of trickle down economic principle?

I hope not. This economy needs well stimulated participants and anything trickling is suspicious

coeur-de-lion 400 Reviews 61 reads

posted 9 years ago

5 / 11

At a certain age . . . .

Its more "dribble-down" economics.

scoed 8 Reviews 14 reads

posted 9 years ago

6 / 11

What the he'll did mushrooms do to you?

Even a mushroom knows to shut up and not say something stupid. Him not so much.

mrfisher 115 Reviews 60 reads

posted 9 years ago

7 / 11

Trickling can be a precursor to more activity....

After all, in the NBA, they dribble before the shoot.

souls_harbor 52 reads

posted 9 years ago

8 / 11

Correlation is not necessarily causation

These correlation studies usually don't reveal the causal arrow, what causes what.

A recent study (that I just made up) finds that hookers who charge more are more attractive. Therefore charge more and you will become more attractive. Obviously the causality is the opposite direction. If you are more attractive you can charge more.

Similarly, all these benefits from sex might mean that people who are well adjusted, for instance, have more sex, rather than having more sex makes you well adjusted.

GaGambler 78 reads

posted 9 years ago

9 / 11

Much of what fish posts is indefensible, like the benefits of goji berries for example

but he CLEARLY called this "Quasi Science" and obviously was not taking the study as serious science, nor was anyone else.

I can think of a study along the lines of your made up one that would be a lot of fun though. I bet you we could prove that charge more get higher scores for appearance than the same women charging less. So change your conclusion from "Charge more and you will become more attractive" to "Charge more and you will get higher scores" and you might be onto something because nobody wants to admit he paid a thousand bucks an hour to fuck a rather average looking woman.

souls_harbor 89 reads

posted 9 years ago

10 / 11

Re: Much of what fish posts is indefensible, like the benefits of goji berries for example

It's actually a well studied area (self-justification.) And it would explain inflated scores.

But pictures are pictures and charging more when the pictures don't match is going to preemptive, I would think.

GaGambler 71 reads

posted 9 years ago

11 / 11

Yes, "you would think" and so would I, but the facts belie our assumptions

There are a lot of women on the "top lists" who are undeniably "average" looking at best, but they still manage to get both high rates and high marks. I just chalk it up to the lack of standards (or bad eyesight) by hobbyists/reviewers and have learned to pay no attention to the numerical ratings system or the old saw about "you get what you pay for" as both have been proven false where it comes to picking providers that I find attractive.