Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,393 posts)
1. Like this?
Mon Jan 12, 2026, 09:00 PM
6 hrs ago
https://archive.is/UaPV2#selection-2497.135-2497.190

This is a confounder.

A causes B ... Okay.

On the other hand, A and C pretty much always co-occur, so it's just as valid to say C causes B. Because you can't tell given the data at hand.

Not that the two can't both be reasons at the same time--but then there's still no way to tell if A started off as the cause of B and then C became more important because, well, you can't tell which (if either) is the real reason.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Another glaring omission ...»Reply #1