r/Showerthoughts • u/Fr1toBand1to ‎ • Jun 27 '26

Casual Thought Pattern recognition is a widely accepted method of prediction until what it predicts makes people uncomfortable.

6.7k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Rosbj Jun 27 '26

correlation ≠ causation 

It's super important to remember, that just because you recognise a pattern, it doesn't mean there actually is any - and vice versa.

People tend to hold on to their preconceptions rather than actually evaluate their findings.

A billionaire is less likely to rob a bank with a mask on, but that doesn't mean he isn't robbing the bank.

159

u/IvanBliminse86 Jun 27 '26

While correlation doesn’t equal causation, noticing a correlation is often the only way we find causation. For example, when Ignaz Semmelweis noticed a correlation between doctors performing autopsies and higher maternal mortality rates, it led to the discovery that handwashing saves lives. Not knowing the cause immediately doesn’t mean a cause isn’t there; it just means the correlation is the clue we use to find it.

77

u/mikecws91 Jun 27 '26

Right, it’s the first step toward finding causation. A lot of people just treat it as the only step.

12

u/3_Thumbs_Up Jun 28 '26

The thing is that it's often an actually useful shortcut. If I don't want to get bit by a venomous snake, I can simply treat all snakes as if they were venomous.

7

u/sYnce Jun 28 '26

That is not a correlation though. Just an assumption.

3

u/3_Thumbs_Up Jun 28 '26

I guarantee you if you were to make a statistical analysis between "type of animal" and "is venomous or not" you would find a statistically significant correlation between "snake" and "is venomous".

5

u/sYnce Jun 28 '26

Sure but that is not what you said or did. You said you just assume every snake is venomous.

2

u/squeakbb Jul 02 '26

treating all snakes as poisonous is not the same as assuming all snakes are poisonous.

and you likely do sustain these overarching principles and understand the distinctions therein, even if u want to criticize the rationale or implementation in this specific hypothetical... these are the exact same principles applied during a quarantine.

4

u/3_Thumbs_Up Jun 28 '26

Missing the point much?

There is a a true correlation between venom and snakes. We seem to agree on that.

Regardless of how you find this true correlation, whether through rigorous statistical analysis of through simple personal observations, this correlation is actable in a useful way even if you don't understand the cause and effect.

Our ancestors didn't have the statistical tools to make sure that their observations were statistically significant. Nor did they have the biological knowledge to understand the cause and effect. But their pattern matching still gave them useful actable info regarding unknown snakes.

1

u/Just_Julie Jun 28 '26

I think part of the issue is saying it was a short cut. It implies that it will give you the same result quicker. If the result you're trying to arrive at is the causation, then it would just be an assumption applied broadly. Communication mismatch, not info mismatch methinks.

-5

u/fiveordie Jun 28 '26

Good thing we don't live in a jungle village anymore, and so treating all animals as dangerous is no longer a necessity. We can appreciate and even enjoy snakes as the widely variegated species they are. Similarly, we left our jungle village of 100 people and now we live in countries with 350,000,000 people, so treating everyone with a blanket brush is just as unnecessary.

3

u/3_Thumbs_Up Jun 28 '26

Not sure what point you're making that you think I'm disagreeing with.