The way she is presenting this stuff is so adorable and amazing.

@jakevancecastaneda3748

3 жыл бұрын

Simp lol

@bryandenis2549

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakevancecastaneda3748 How in any way shape or form is this simping, wow, someone commented positively on the actions of a female, automatic simp, honestly, this generation's common sense is broken, and I know bc I used to think like that, but a classmate of mine made a similar reaction, and the rest of the class was spent talking about what defines a simp bc as it happens, my teacher was female, so we all learned.

@manbiteslife3110

2 жыл бұрын

@@bryandenis2549 relax warrior

This was great, full of humor but well explained.

Her shirt is so adorable, aw.

Such a concise presentation of a very subtle concept. "Correlation is not causation" but that is not how our brains, which evolved as pattern recognition machines work.

@jsmariani4180

2 жыл бұрын

A 4 year old heard a very loud scary bang at the exact moment a rabbit appeared. He had an irrational fear of rabbits the rest of his life.

Such a lovely presenter and delivery of an otherwise (when stripped down to its bones) boring and dry topic =))

Clearly people need to stop eating ice cream while they're swimming.

@gjhardy

3 жыл бұрын

Some people still don’t get the message, don’t they. Clue, it’s the Sun, not the ice cream and not the swimming.

@user-yl6or4cm9p

Жыл бұрын

@@gjhardy Well, I think you're the one who misunderstood, bro.

@crystalhayward7058

Жыл бұрын

Luckily I’m lactose intolerant 😅

Very amazing the way she presents but also highlights the importance of the relationship of causality and correlation. Not every time to conclude on that

it's because of you i understood the difference corelation and casual .thank u very much

Great talk. Thanks to correlation we have been teaching entrepreneurship all wrong for years. We seem to think it is a linear planning process were in fact it is an organic process of discovery. Now thanks to Saras Sarasvathy and Nobel price winner Herbert Simon we know better... Effectuation describes how expert entrepreneurs think decide and act.

very easy to understand this better and grab my attention completely with the way she presented this :)

This is true with an asterisk. While dangerous to short circuit from correlation to causation (as journalists often do), in Six Sigma analyses we use the set of correlations from which to begin our search for causative relationships. So correlations should not be summarily dismissed.

@oliverwan1520

Жыл бұрын

Good point 🙂

@SafeTrucking

4 ай бұрын

Correlation does NOT NECESSARILY imply causation... but it's a good place to start!

We need to ban the weather to stop drowning

Loved! Thank you!

Excellent!

BAM!!! Thank you!

excellent explanation

Very interesting talk!

Good stuff!

Elaboration 💯

It's funny as I see the causality vs. correlation mistake in some TEDTalks - there's one I recall about food sensitivities by Robyn O'Brien which shows a few parallel plots and jumps to conclusions.

Thank you

very insightful talk

I love eating tomatoes, but I have read that people who were born in 1860 and ate tomatoes during their lifetimes have a mortality rate of 100 per cent. :-O Are you sure there's no causality? ;-)

@Brammor

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks, I never knew that! Glad i wasn't born in that period of time :)

@lambd01d

9 жыл бұрын

Tomatoes were clearly far more toxic then.

@kt4580

9 жыл бұрын

Daniel Roy If this is the claim, I believe the main point is missed here. She is saying that even if you see there is direct correlation, you still have to prove "why it is happening?" and "how it is happening?" to show causality (basically cause and effect relationship) which is the essence of understanding the underlying principles of a mechanism (can be a sociological, biological, dynamic, socioeconomic, .....etc.). In other words you have to prove it.

@danielroy1966

9 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I know. I just meant to underline what she said.

@oneofakind8134

5 жыл бұрын

Of course we can always research causality but that is not the purpose of correlational research. It is two variables that rise together, fall together, or have no relationship at all. There is a positive correlation between baby boomers and hepatitis but that does not mean that being a baby boomer will cause you to have hepatitis or the having hepatitis means you are a baby boomer. It is only a relationship. Sure there is a cause of each, but that is a different type of research. Mortality rate of those that were born in 1860's and ate tomatoes, is only a relationship. You can not say, confidently, that because any one born in 1860 and ate tomatoes, will have a high mortality rate. Again relationship, not cause.

wetenschap is dat voor te weten x

I'll never eat ice cream again

@zurichsee706

6 жыл бұрын

have mine too, you fatty :-D

@wouttengrootenhuysen5137

6 жыл бұрын

Haha, just to be on the safe side !

@mikitz

5 жыл бұрын

The correct conclusion is this: warm weather decreases one's ability to swim.

There is actually proof of bright or even dim light interfering with the circadian rhythm or sleep cycle.

@manbiteslife3110

2 жыл бұрын

not them becoming short sighted tho

Can anyone tell me what this song is at the beginning of this video?

Thank you very much, I didn't know I needed this for my thesis. Thank you once again.

@yasyasmarangoz3577

Жыл бұрын

What thesis?

Amazing

awesome!

This topic is very important 👍🏻

she is great

I read a study where they tested self-esteem in third and sixth grade. High self-esteem in third grade was not a predictor for good grades in sixth grade. But good grades in third grade predicted higher self-esteem in sixth grade. So from this it seemed fair to conclude that good grades cause self-esteem and not the other way around.

I was hoping she would go into what actually constitutes causality. I'm sure we're all aware of badly-written newspaper articles claiming causality for research that only shows correlation, but what would actually prove causality?

@osmanlioglu

9 жыл бұрын

lambd01d I think, nothing can prove causality of apparent causes. No basis other than mere intuition. On the contrary, we can think of "evidences" which disprove causality. A centuries long discussion though!!!

@DavidSkis

9 жыл бұрын

Yusuf Osmanlioglu Actually, you demonstrate causality through well-crafted experiments based on theory. You can learn more about demonstrating causality by taking some courses on research methods.

@shananagans5

8 жыл бұрын

lambd01d To illustrate causality you have to isolate & test the variables independently., In other words you keep everything the same except for what you are testing. Examples; If you want to see if a plant food works you need a group of plants that get the plant food & a group that doesn't and you need to keep all other variables the same. They need to be in the same soil, they need to get the same amount of light & water. Both groups need to be treated exactly the same in every way except for the plant food. Then, if the group that gets the plant food grows better you have shown causation. With things like the ice cream sales & drownings it gets a bit more complex. If you wanted to illustrate ice cream causing drownings in city A you would have to look at the base rate of drownings for a year & then ban ice cream sales & see if there are fewer drownings. What you are essentially doing is comparing city A (with ice cream) to city A (without ice cream) We are trying to keep all other variables the same as much as possible. Obviously, with an entire city or a country there are other factors that you just can't control. What if there was a cold snap in the weather? What if they hired more lifeguards? Those things could reduce drownings & possibly prompt an incorrect conclusion. That's why we may study the same thing several times. "Prove" Is a very strong word & we could debate if anything was ever proven but, if you control for variables properly, you can offer strong evidence for things.

@RosatoTomato

7 жыл бұрын

Bradford Hill criteria for causation: 1. Strength of Association - the magnitude of the association. 2. Consistency - relationship can be demonstrated on many occasions and in different situations (e.g. countries, times). 3. Specificity - a 1-to-1 relationship between cause and effect; a factor leads to one disease, or disease is due to one factor. Must be acknowledged, however, that most exposures have multiple effects and some diseases have multiple causes. 4. Appropriate time relationships (TEMPORALITY) - a proposed cause MUST precede an effect (exposure before outcome), and the latent period between the earliest exposure and manifestation should be appropriate. 5. Biological gradient (DOSE RESPONSE) - causality is further enhanced if the risk of disease increases as the dose of exposure increases. The absence of a dose-response relationship is often taken as evidence against causality; however, the presence of a dose response relationship may be caused by confounding. 6. Biological plausibility - existence of a physiological mechanism by which a proposed cause exerts its effect. 7. Experiment - natural experiments occur or semi-experimental evidence is available e.g. Nuclear plant exposes workers to radiation. 8. Analogy - if similar situations or findings are present regarding related chemicals, then the case for causation is much stronger. 9. Coherence of the evidence - summary of all other criteria for causation and its integration into a view as to whether a true association exists and, if so, its magnitude and what should be done about it. Final decision is always an informed judgement.

@ofernandofilo

7 жыл бұрын

IF !A THEN !B. This is Causality. So if happen A without B, or if happen B without A, then, there is no causality, just correlation. But in the Universe nothing seems to be so pure. And then we need to try to isolate the variables. We start to look less to 0% and 100% and start to look more in between. The earlier comment looks like a pretty good start. Now you know the definition. But the way is eternal! Good luck!

Prof. Saeb's class sent me here.

I would like to know how Ionica Smeets defines "causality" if not by correlation.

so in other words, you have to be knowledgeable in the physical domain in order to interpret the data/stats

can someone cite this for me?

tho causation is correlated to the principle of sufficient reason transcendentally, (speculations and unproved philosophems on a side), namely the correlate of freedom (empiric aka practical reason) is the Will (phenomenological)only as an abstraction or a subject-object representation aka relation etc.

Great examples of how correlation does not mean causation.

@rs72098

Жыл бұрын

Well many times it does, but not ALL the time. It's interesting because Tedx will always use a disproven correlation/causation argument when it comes to legalizing drugs, or pushing the evolution theory.

Correlation and cause and relation are two different things...

4:02

GRIFFITHHHHH!!!!

Her tone inflection was a little difficult but because I could rewind I got all the important points. Good presentation, but she must have been nervous :)

I had exceptional grades in high school but it does not reflect my self confidence.

Luvely

GRIFFFFFITHHH!"

I want that shirt she's wearing

crisp

Yes---one needs to think about our snap conclusion about things...she is very charming ......but the marriage example is flawed. We would need to analyze the data based on one income level. Ex rich men who do not marry and those who don't. Poor men that marry/vs those that don't.

is that so wow some people would nt and couldnt eat foods or stop its to hard my taste buds and still hungry and ice cream thats been my favorite since i was 9 years old. i barely gave up or stoped eating candy or choclate like edible candy everything ing the world being edible to me any way

@PumpkinCone

4 жыл бұрын

Do you English?

Too bad more people don’t use this simple logic when it comes to the premise of descent with modification.

Correlation does not imply Causation

@rs72098

Жыл бұрын

The phrase should be "Correlation not ALWAYS imply causation", because there are times when it does imply causation.

So obviously we need to ban good weather.

Journalists should wach this before wrinting articles🤣🤣🤣 as they use to turn correlations to facts by habit.

what if i eat icecream in the desert?

@jasonprasadstaff380

5 жыл бұрын

Then it would be dessert.

Maybe it is the reason of superstitions. People derive moronic causation from a correlation.

lol you shouldn't ban ANYTHING that is dangerous cars are the most dangerous thing in the world!

"Look mario, its a question blotch"

@legokiller3579

4 жыл бұрын

WHAY ARE YO SAYD MARIO?

i just. got a pack of medium nails i am working on in the next few and today. and

Lethal icecream

This video made me feel depressed

@corvoattano9303

11 ай бұрын

Why? Because of the married men segment?

wat

Stream ice cream

Probleem is dat Ionica geen echte wetenschapper is maar een fantast.

الدحيح

5:24 "female bankers and financial crisis" 🤣

The financial crisis I thought were caused by men - oh wait correlation but no causation? Thank you doctor!

This lady is talking about people drowning to death with a smile.

Man made global warming could be another example!

Why she sound like Stephen Hawking ?

Her accent is hard I cannot understand what she is saying

@gtiz5

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed, she has an accent, but I doubt this is an issue here, and it certainly does not detract from the quality of the talk.

@juliovouga7246

7 жыл бұрын

I presume you're being too hard on her either because of an accent based bias or because you're not proficient in English. This is not my native language and I was able to understand her thoroughly.

@LettuceLand

7 жыл бұрын

I was able to understand everything she said.

Awesome!! Now do Climate Change…

Wrong on "life expectancy" A Married man takes better care of his health (because his wife insists on it) and therefore he lives longer.

So there's no correlation between smoking and lungs that leads to the causation of lung cancer? Correlation simply means the co-relation of two or more subjects. Conditions simply don't 'happen'. That's like saying the Principle of Cause and Effect isn't true. If somebody stabs my leg with a knife and I yell in pain and bleed - then the CAUSE stems from the relationship between the knife and my torn flesh. I'm not going to sit down and say "Well gee, I want to say that this excruciating pain is the result of a knife tearing into my leg. But correlation is not causation. So I can't prove that this is the case." Why the hell do people not understand the obvious?

@EpsilonFilms

8 жыл бұрын

Kiko Joseph There is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The causation comes from the study of the various mechanisms by which this is possible. The example you provide is a silly one, because in that case the cause is blatantly obvious because you have reliable evidence that the knife caused it (e.g. you saw or felt the knife stab you.) In other cases, like the ones mentioned in this talk, the situations are much more complicated and as a result the real cause may be less intuitive for the interpreter. This is why mistakes are made... so the answer to your last question is that it is not always obvious.

@JamesWattMusic

4 жыл бұрын

smoke is like tiny knives poking at your lungs

@luyolomagwebu389

2 жыл бұрын

In the knife scenario You would know why you're yelling, it would be quite clear to You but to an outsider it should technically be difficult to tell. It could happen that something else is causing you the pain and it coincidentally occurred at the same time you were being stabbed and also happens to be of greater pain magnitude, hence you're yelling. Without your acknowledgement, I can only go on correlation, I'll know the cause once you tell me.

The phrase should be *"Correlation does not ALWAYS equal causation but there are many times it does"* It's interesting that Ted talks will draw causation ONLY when it suits their libertarian left-wing agenda such as evolution, legalizing drugs, and legalizing prostitution.

@dlon4539

Жыл бұрын

From your many, give me your top 3 examples

@thedoc5848

Жыл бұрын

Infering causation from correlation is a logical fallacy. It never even implies causation

@yasyasmarangoz3577

Жыл бұрын

Let's talk, what would be the consequences of legalizing drugs? What would legalizing look like?

Except for the snarky comment about vaccines it was a pretty interesting video...not pro or anti, just neutral on the topic, but there is also no proof that it DOESN'T or CAN'T cause autism...

@risingelement2099

Жыл бұрын

This was 10 years ago

@yasyasmarangoz3577

Жыл бұрын

Ok Mojica.