[HN Gopher] Berkson's Paradox
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Berkson's Paradox
        
       Author : luu
       Score  : 70 points
       Date   : 2022-11-20 03:10 UTC (19 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
        
       | mjburgess wrote:
       | The whole family of statistical paradoxes like these arise, imv
       | (and perhaps that of Pearl's) due to a failure to distinguish
       | between statistical and explanatory (ie., causal) analysis.
       | 
       | The whole machinery of statistics is insensitive to whether X
       | causes Y, Y causes X, neither cause each other, or there is an
       | intermediate cause.
       | 
       | To see this, take any graph with any statistical model, and flip
       | the axes. The analysis is the same, but the direction of
       | causation implicitly reversed. Indeed, take any of these
       | paradoxes (esp. simpson's).
       | 
       | Nevertheless for much of the recent history of applied statistics
       | these distinctions have not been made (esp. because it has been
       | developed within the experimental contexts of dubious fields).
       | 
       | It is important to state however, that no technique or quantity
       | of statistics is ever sufficient to credit any association with
       | being an explanation. To credit any association with any
       | scientific theory, and hence neither with any properties.
       | 
       | No quantity of associative statistical research into IQ thereby
       | implies such a thing exists (cf. the reification fallacy).
       | 
       | To transcend statistics into science one needs experiments, those
       | which can control variables, and hence provide a non-statistical
       | interpretive framework which demonstrates these variables are
       | explanatory, and hence gives credence to the theories which
       | explain them.
        
         | perfecthjrjth wrote:
         | This. Very interesting take, indeed.
        
       | rahimnathwani wrote:
       | Related:
       | 
       | * https://twitter.com/page_eco/status/1373266475230789633
       | (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26566810)
       | 
       | * https://erikbern.com/2020/01/13/how-to-hire-smarter-than-the...
        
       | ouid wrote:
       | for whom is this unintuitive?
       | 
       | pick two random numbers whose sum is 0.
        
         | nerdponx wrote:
         | > pick two random numbers whose sum is 0.
         | 
         | It's unintuitive if you don't realize that the numbers sum to
         | 0. This stuff can creep up on you in real-world data without
         | realizing it.
        
           | bmacho wrote:
           | Is that still happening? I'd guess that statisticians figured
           | it out by now? Is it hard, or impossible maybe?
           | 
           | But I agree with GP, how is this surprising? The example in
           | the article is stupid, and I am not convinced whether there
           | are any real surprising or counter-intuitive examples.
        
             | mxwsn wrote:
             | This can happen all the time in data science. Just add a
             | few layers of bureaucracy and department separations
             | between data gathering, cleaning/filtering, and analysis
             | and it's easy to make the wrong conclusions on observed
             | correlations without carefully thinking through all the
             | filtering steps that might induce Berkson's paradox.
        
             | ZephyrBlu wrote:
             | It's possible to implicitly filter your population, like in
             | the hospital example given on the wiki page.
             | 
             | Any situation where you make assumptions about the
             | population could cause Berkson's paradox.
             | 
             | The Ellenberg example on the wiki page is a classic
             | situation. Less attractive people are filtered out of the
             | dating pool due to standards. This is reasonable, but it
             | creates Berkson's paradox.
             | 
             | It's often hard to realize this is happening.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Recent and related:
       | 
       |  _Brilliant jerks, crazy hotties, and other artifacts of range
       | restriction (2019)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33676648 - Nov 2022 (73
       | comments)
       | 
       | Also:
       | 
       |  _Berkson 's Paradox_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26566810 - March 2021 (39
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Berkson 's Paradox_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18667423 - Dec 2018 (21
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Berkson 's Paradox_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8264252 - Sept 2014 (20
       | comments)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-11-20 23:00 UTC)