[Leftium]

> The reality is that causality is very difficult to prove. Not only does it require a higher level of statistical rigor, it also requires A LOT of carefully collected data. Meaning you will have to wait a long time before you can make any causal claim.

Malcolm Gladwell's similar message: https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/burden-of-proof/

- A correlation between mining and lung cancer was discovered in 1918, but wasn't acted on until 1975.

- There is a correlation between football and suicide/brain damage, but it is not being acted on.

[brittanymdavis1]

At the end of the day, a correlation analysis will never replace a causal study. So really un-intuitive relationships would likely have never been uncovered with this approach. But I believe most of the questions we're typically asking - especially in a business context - are super intuitive and, even with a big causal study, they are never that "surprising" - don't you agree?

[melling]

That’s no exactly true. I think the NFL has moved past denial

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22603654/nfl-doctor-says...

https://www.today.com/parents/brett-favre-psa-urges-no-tackl...

Whether the game can ever be made safe is another issue.

[whyenot]

The NFL might have moved past denial, but the NCAA and high school sports don't seem to have traveled very far along that path.

It's profoundly sad that institutions of higher learning are promoting activities that they know can cause brain damage and long term disability, just so they can make money and entertain their alumni.

[negativesigma]

There’s a lot of evidence pointing to cumulative hits being a larger predictor of CTE than concussions. Unfortunately that’s not a problem the NFL can solve so it’s been swept under the rug.

This raises a broader point about Collinearity and whether correlation is actually actionable when the feedback cycle is long. You could easily be working the problem for 20 years before you ever knew you were wrong.