azzurrissimo.ch

Again and again I read about studies that “prove” exciting facts in various magazines and journals. Just three of them:
1. “The risk of becoming fat increases with TV consumption”.
2. “Kids that do not sleep enough are less likely to get a high school degree”
3. “People in a lucky partnership are less likely to suffer from cancer”

The pattern is always similar: 2 variables (A and B) - depicted as cause and effect - are analyzed for correlation. If there is a relationship, for example:
“If A is higher, there is more B” or “If A is not given, then B is present” the fact that A leads to be is taken as proven.

In the first example - the one with the television - they asked people how much TV they watched and recorded the weight and height (most probably, just guessing). Then they drew a graph and saw that fat people watched more TV and vice versa. Until now, this was just a fact but with some interpretation there is a dependency of the weight and TV consumption, the latter being the cause. Maybe this is what should have been proven from the beginning and thus, further dependencies and causes are not analyzed.

What about this (alternative interpretation): There are more and less active people, determined by birth. The more active people move more, like to be outside and have natural eating habits. The less active don’t like to move and are staying inside more often. They don’t like organic food and don’t have natural eating habits. While the first type stays healthy and slim, the second type grows fat.

In the second example - the one with the kids - it could also well be (just interpretation as well) that socially poor families pay less attention to a decent education, their kids don’t have to follow many rules, they can go to bed when they like (or after the action movie that runs on TV) and do not have to make proper homework. Additionally, their parents don’t think that a high school degree is somehow important (they don’t have one either) and thus, their kids are less likely to go to high school.

I’m not saying that my explanations are more likely than the original ones. However, as long as not every possible cause has been examined or as long as there is a real proof (for example an observable connection of two events, including a blank test), it’s just two variables that correlate somehow.