[phaedryx]

Here's what Claude gave me:

A real-life example of three events A, B, and C where A and B are correlated, B and C are correlated, but A and C are uncorrelated could be:

A: Ice cream sales B: Temperature C: Energy consumption for air conditioning

Let's break this down:

A and B correlation:

Ice cream sales (A) and temperature (B) are positively correlated. As temperature rises, people tend to buy more ice cream.

B and C correlation:

Temperature (B) and energy consumption for air conditioning (C) are positively correlated. As temperature increases, people use more air conditioning, leading to higher energy consumption.

A and C uncorrelated:

Ice cream sales (A) and energy consumption for air conditioning (C) are not directly correlated. While both increase with temperature, there's no direct causal relationship between them.

[chairmanmow]

If the purpose of ice cream and air conditioning is to make the user feel cooler, then wouldn't it be logical to say the more ice cream they eat the less air conditioning they'd use and vice versa? That seems like a causal relationship to me that's being glossed over, but maybe I'm missing something.

[card_zero]

I think the way to construct these is: find (a) such that all kinds of things can cause it, choose (b) as one of the causes of (a), choose (c) as something else also caused by (b) but also having all kinds of other potential causes different from those of (a).

So this example isn't good, because when people are eating most ice cream, people are using most air con, both being mainly caused by hot weather. (Unless as you point out we're looking at one individual who wants a solution to feeling hot and doesn't need to do both things together.)