Does this scatter chart really show a cause and effect?

[NTL2009]

I asked a question. You gave me your answer. Why do you keep coming back at me? ...

Because your answer didn't make sense to me. Where are the three posters who "partially agreed" with you?

You posted to a forum. Questions are asked, answered, and discussed. If you don't like that, I'll give the same advice I give others in this situation: start your own blog, where you can control the comments, and allow only those that agree with you.

Am i not allowed to ask this question because of some crazy saying like.

"correlation does not prove causality"

If you think that saying is "crazy", there is little hope you will make progress with investigations into data.

If you wish to believe the saying above it is your business. Good luck to you. As for me i will continue to question and doubt everything I see and hear. That is who I am and it has served me well.

Question and doubt are good tools. But at some point you need to accept something, or you can't get off the starting line. And it is pretty easy to accept that "correlation does not prove causality", it's been discussed seriously and specifically in this thread, and with some more light-hearted (but still with a serious point) illustration with that website of various correlations that are clearly just coincidence.

To re-hash, the correlation in that data is not strong, maybe not even weak. You should gather much more data before even attempting to take anything from it. Some has been suggested (meat consumption in general, calorie consumption, activity levels, age, gender, etc). If you think that single graph is curious enough to raise the question, fine. But that means go on to these other areas, and see if anything holds. One chart is barely a starting point.

 

[Mark44]

I never said it was a causative factor.

No, but as I said in my previous post, which you quoted, you seem to be thinking that eating chicken causes obesity.
Thread title "Does this scatter chart really show a cause and effect?"
As has been stated numerous times in reply, the answer is "No."

 

[arydberg]

No, but as I said in my previous post, which you quoted, you seem to be thinking that eating chicken causes obesity.
Thread title "Does this scatter chart really show a cause and effect?"
As has been stated numerous times in reply, the answer is "No."

The answer is not "NO" The answer is that no one really knows. To you the answer is No. I can accept that for you as well as others. What I cannot accept is your disagreement with me because i do not think like you would like me to think. I have no planes to change . Could we please just agree to disagree.

 

[arydberg]

Because your answer didn't make sense to me. Where are the three posters who "partially agreed" with you?

You posted to a forum. Questions are asked, answered, and discussed. If you don't like that, I'll give the same advice I give others in this situation: start your own blog, where you can control the comments, and allow only those that agree with you.

If you think that saying is "crazy", there is little hope you will make progress with investigations into data.
Question and doubt are good tools. But at some point you need to accept something, or you can't get off the starting line. And it is pretty easy to accept that "correlation does not prove causality", it's been discussed seriously and specifically in this thread, and with some more light-hearted (but still with a serious point) illustration with that website of various correlations that are clearly just coincidence.

To re-hash, the correlation in that data is not strong, maybe not even weak. You should gather much more data before even attempting to take anything from it. Some has been suggested (meat consumption in general, calorie consumption, activity levels, age, gender, etc). If you think that single graph is curious enough to raise the question, fine. But that means go on to these other areas, and see if anything holds. One chart is barely a starting point.

Perhaps it's just me and the world thinks differently but I have great difficulty in trying to see any positive results from that saying. I will take your advice to look little deeper.

 

[mfb]

The answer is not "NO" The answer is that no one really knows.

The question was "does this scatter chart show cause and effect", and assuming you mean "show" in the sense of evidence for it, the answer is no.
Even if there is cause and effect (that's what we do not know), the chart does not show it.

 

[OmCheeto]

This thread doesn't make much sense. Try plotting fatness vs. number of cars per person

Sense, schmense... This is fun!

Cars make you fatter than eating chickens makes you fatter!

, or just vs. GDP per capita. I bet you'll get a much better correlation.

I wish you hadn't asked that...

AFAIK chicken grow fast because they have ideal conditions. I know for a fact that temperature is regulated to $0.1^oC$ within an ideal temperature profile, probably also lighting does not resemble natural daylight.
Anyway, meat is meat, there are no homeopathic imprints or toxic substances in it.

It is probably true that developed countries eat too much of *any* meat, though. But I doubt statistics can shed some light on this, because there are too many other variables. You need a controlled experiment where the only difference is the amount of chicken eaten, over at least a decade, in a group of at least several tens of people.

Not sure where you're going to get a "control group".
But you are right, there are many variables.

For instance, working on the farm will make you skinny.

Anyone know how to add statistical data together, to get a really smooth graph?

I'm up to 15 variables now.

 

[Mark44]

Cars make you fatter than eating chickens makes you fatter!

What if you have two cars, and eat chicken in both of them?

 

[mfb]

For instance, working on the farm will make you skinny.

Or being skinny makes you sell your car and work on farms.

Your income/obesity outlier is Japan, by the way (same for the cars and agriculture), and you should consider GPD purchase-power adjusted.

 

[Mark44]

"correlation does not prove causality"

Perhaps it's just me and the world thinks differently but I have great difficulty in trying to see any positive results from that saying.

First off, that's not just a "saying." And second, yes, the world pretty much thinks differently from you about whether factors that are correlated mean that one of them causes the other. This is a result from many, many years of the disciplines of statistics and probability.

We can "agree to disagree" but you're not going to find anyone in your corner who is knowledgeable about statistics.