Post by @SpencrGreenberg
85% credible (89% factual, 79% presentation). The claim that causation typically implies correlation is largely accurate for most practical scenarios in statistics and science, supported by foundational principles in causal inference. However, the presentation omits discussion of exceptions where causation occurs without detectable correlation, such as in complex nonlinear dynamics or measurement errors.
Analysis Summary
The post introduces the idea that while correlation does not imply causation, the reverse is often true: causation typically implies correlation, allowing correlations to rule out unlikely causal claims. This principle is generally accurate in standard linear relationships but overlooks rare exceptions like non-linear effects or suppressor variables. An example is provided to illustrate how zero correlation can disprove causation, such as the lack of link between being a Pisces and empathy.
Original Content
The Facts
The claim is largely correct for most practical scenarios in statistics and science, supported by foundational principles in causal inference. Verdict: Mostly True, though it simplifies by not addressing edge cases where causation occurs without detectable correlation, such as in complex nonlinear dynamics or measurement errors.
Benefit of the Doubt
The author advances a perspective of evidence-based critical thinking, emphasizing a lesser-known statistical heuristic to empower readers in debunking pseudoscientific claims like astrology. It highlights the utility of correlations as a quick falsification tool while omitting discussions of exceptions, such as scenarios with bidirectional causation, confounding variables, or non-monotonic relationships that could produce zero correlation despite causality. Key insight: By focusing on the 'typical' case without caveats, the presentation risks overconfidence in correlation checks, potentially shaping reader perception to undervalue rigorous methods like RCTs. This selective framing promotes rationality but may encourage hasty dismissals without full context.
Predictions Made
Claims about future events that can be verified later
I bet you've heard that "correlation doesn't imply causation,"
Prior: 80% based on base rate of exposure to this fundamental statistical principle in education and media. Evidence: High author credibility (92% truthfulness, expertise in psychology and decision-making); web sources confirm it's a standard phrase (e.g., Wikipedia, Scribbr). No bias against this. Posterior: 90%.
you probably haven't heard this one
Prior: 70% based on base rate that advanced statistical nuances are less familiar to general audiences. Evidence: Author credibility high, but potential bias toward promoting novel ideas from rationalist community; X posts and web results show the standard phrase is ubiquitous while this reverse is niche. Posterior: 75%.
How Is This Framed?
Biases, omissions, and misleading presentation techniques detected
The content omits discussion of exceptions where causation occurs without detectable correlation, such as nonlinear effects, suppressor variables, or measurement errors, presenting the principle as more universally applicable than it is.
Problematic phrases:
"causation typically implies correlation""you can often rule out causation simply by checking a correlation!"What's actually there:
Causation can exist without correlation in edge cases like complex nonlinear dynamics
What's implied:
Lack of correlation always disproves causation in practical scenarios
Impact: Misleads readers into hasty dismissals of potential causal relationships, undervaluing the need for more rigorous methods like RCTs and fostering overconfidence in simplistic analysis.
Sources & References
External sources consulted for this analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
https://www.jmp.com/en/statistics-knowledge-portal/what-is-correlation/correlation-vs-causation
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10010939/
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qcubo7/eli5_what_does_it_mean_that_correlation_does_not/
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16tpx76/eli5_correlation_does_not_imply_causation/
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlation-vs-causation/
https://amplitude.com/blog/causation-correlation
https://medium.com/@glennrocess/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-da9d94347296
https://frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645518/full
https://allinthedifference.com/true-or-false-correlation-implies-causation
https://www.r-bloggers.com/2025/06/correlation-vs-causation-understanding-the-difference/
https://medium.com/towards-data-science/4-reasons-why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation-f202f69fe979
https://medium.com/@seema.singh/why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation-5b99790df07e
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a27818/correlation-causality-statistics/
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1597946526193811457
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1273814659133575173
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1597946528886591489
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1889492739387170991
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1872773632596017601
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1776410054272635165
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
https://www.jmp.com/en/statistics-knowledge-portal/what-is-correlation/correlation-vs-causation
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlation-vs-causation/
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/statistical-terms-and-concepts/correlation-and-causation
https://amplitude.com/blog/causation-correlation
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10010939/
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qcubo7/eli5_what_does_it_mean_that_correlation_does_not/
https://glennrocess.medium.com/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-da9d94347296
https://www.allinthedifference.com/true-or-false-correlation-implies-causation/
https://frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645518/full
https://www.r-bloggers.com/2025/06/correlation-vs-causation-understanding-the-difference/
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlation-vs-causation/
https://medium.com/@seema.singh/why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation-5b99790df07e
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.3587
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1872773632596017601
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1273814659133575173
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1597946526193811457
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1776410054272635165
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1656045862668124160
https://x.com/SpencrGreenberg/status/1773038400322314599
Want to see @SpencrGreenberg's track record?
View their credibility score and all analyzed statements