12
   

spurious correlations

 
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:03 pm
In statistics, a spurious relationship (or, sometimes, spurious correlation or spurious regression) is a mathematical relationship in which two occurrences have no causal connection, yet it may be inferred that they do, due to a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "confounding factor" or "lurking variable"). The spurious relationship gives an impression of a worthy link between two groups that is invalid when objectively examined.

The misleading correlation between two variables is produced through the operation of a third causal variable. In other words we find a correlation between A and B. So we have three possible relationships:

A causes B,
B causes A,
OR
C causes both A and B.

The last is a spurious correlation. In a regression model, where A is regressed on B, but C is found to be the true causal factor for B; this is called specification error. It is therefore often said that "Correlation does not imply causation".

The true causal chain may be

C => A => B

or even

A => C => B

or as illiterated above,

C => A and C => B

An example of a spurious relationship can be illuminated examining a city's ice cream sales. These sales are highest when the rate of drownings in city swimming pools is highest. To allege that ice cream sales cause drowning, or vice-versa, would be to imply a spurious relationship between the two. In reality, a heat wave may have caused both. The heat wave is an example of a hidden or unseen variable.

Another popular example is a series of Dutch statistics showing a positive correlation between the number of storks nesting in a series of springs and the number of human babies born at that time. Of course there was no causal connection; they were correlated with each other only because they were correlated with the weather nine months before the observations.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 3,260 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:06 pm
i believe the Jackson 5 said it best

A-B-C
Easy as 1-2-3
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:09 pm
@dyslexia,
Very good! This explains some of the faulty arguments on the political threads.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:11 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
This explains some of the faulty arguments on the political threads.

i chalk all mine up to a complete ignorance of the subject matter

now i can blame it on actuarial chart, sweet
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:21 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
The misleading correlation between two variables is produced through the operation of a third causal variable. In other words we find a correlation between A and B. So we have three possible relationships:

A causes B,
B causes A,
OR
C causes both A and B.

The last is a spurious correlation.

Well, that's not entirely true. They all could be spurious correlations, because there's a fourth possible relationship: pure coincidence. If two variables correlate solely by chance, then inferring any causal relationship between them would be spurious.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:27 pm
@joefromchicago,
The degree of correlation tells you how likely or unlikely it is that the apparent relationship is due entirely to chance.

A strong correlation implies that pure chance is unlikely, although is it always possible.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:49 pm
Robert and I once thrashed this out on another thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/125257-10#post-3475171
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:49 pm
Can you see a correlation here?
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/gismonda/vote.jpg
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:52 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

An example of a spurious relationship can be illuminated examining a city's ice cream sales. These sales are highest when the rate of drownings in city swimming pools is highest. To allege that ice cream sales cause drowning, or vice-versa, would be to imply a spurious relationship between the two. In reality, a heat wave may have caused both. The heat wave is an example of a hidden or unseen variable.


If those at the city's swimming pools bought ice-cream, but did not wait some alloted time, before going into the pool after eating the ice-cream, could there then be a relationship between the ice-cream and the pool drownings?

Sort of like, do not drink and drive (do not eat ice-cream and swim?) If this is true, then the heat wave was not a hidden variable, since if the people waited some alloted time after eating ice-cream, there might have been fewer drownings?

A big false correlation is romantice love, I believe. A young person may get physically aroused by someone of the opposite sex, and concludes it is love, when in reality it is hormones driving libido.

False correlations may just be what keeps society locked into its simplistic thinking. Why look for hard answers, when an easy answer seems to be staring one in the face?

0 Replies
 
sullyfish6
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 02:27 pm
Does this apply to the "There is no such thing as an accident" philosophy?

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 03:38 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:
Can you see a correlation here?

As Goethe's Faust puts it: Die Botschaft hoer ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der Glaube. ("The message I do hear, and yet I lack belief.") This is a spurious correlation caused by uncritical e-mail authors who inadvertently passed on a hoax. I saw the table debunked on Snopes at the time.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 03:43 pm
@Thomas,
Thus the disclaimer, "Taken from the Internet. Not to be taken seriously."
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 03:49 pm
There has always been a relationship between stock market and women's skirt length. Should I mortgage the farm?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:00 pm
@DrewDad,
I never notice these things until I hit "submit".
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:03 pm
@roger,
depends on whose skirt and what farm, Tina Turner's skirt and your Tobacco farm? yeah sell the farm.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:26 pm
It's the proof of God. The last lurking variable which is and is infinite and all the other lurking variables including the Big Bang are of an extremely confused lower order which any philosopher can get past.

Why the last lurking variable is the cause of the confusion I have not yet discovered but without it confusion is all there is. Those who put it on Ignore go around all day long bleating "They should do this", or "They should do that" and "Why don't they?"

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:00 pm
@Francis,
One needs to see a bell curve for each state to see if a few very high IQ's in the states that voted for Kerry raised the state "average" IQ. The states that voted for Bush could have a more even distribution of IQ's, or a few low IQ's to pull down the average. Averages prove very little, I believe. A mode for each state (the IQ with the largest grouping) would show more, I believe.

And, IQ has nothing to correlate with voting, in my opinion, since it is one's value system that drives many voters. The South is more bible believing Christian than the North. They may just have liked Bush's orientation to Christian values. The north is quite liberal Protestant and Catholic. That may correlate more to Kerry's views?

Remember, many Southerners join the military, and make a career there. That seemed to be of value to France twice in the 20th century. I am sure that outside of the large urban areas in France there are some lesser intellects. Nothing to make fun of, I am sure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Uni. Assignment: Rhetorical devices? - Question by i3ronnyG
 
  1. Forums
  2. » spurious correlations
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.73 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:23:02