|
|
|
|
|
|
by throw_14JAS
2346 days ago
|
|
|
Upvoted you, because why not throw around internet points! It's easy to forget that things that are basic to some are extremely advanced to others. As HN grows, it draws in more diverse backgrounds; many of which don't have much statistics exposure. I know data scientists who work at FAANGs, for whom this would be almost entirely new information (the causality stuff). Thank you for taking the time to add more essential points. Do you think it's possible to make better decisions with partial causation, versus a more correlational approach? That is, do we really need true causation to improve our decision making? Or can we make better, albeit imperfect, decisions with imperfect causality? Is that better than what most statisticians do with correlation? |
|
|