[pbhjpbhj]

Do you have a hypothesis why "happiness" would correlate with marriage without their being any causative relationship?

Correlation does suggest causation though. Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?

[Contero]

The causation could easily be backwards. Who wants to marry a depressed, unsatisfied drinker?

> Isn't it generally sound to assume causation until the position can be falsified?

Not really, no. Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? There are many similarly insane correlations that you wouldn't be so quick to assume causation about. It's biased to assume causation (based solely on statistics) when you want it to make intuitive sense.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Would you assume causation in the case of cereal consumption typically increasing 30% on the first Tuesday after a heavy rainfall? //

I can't really conjure an imaginary causation because for your imagined one [?] I'm not sure what your claim is - do you mean 30% more breakfast cereal is eaten (as opposed to purchased) on the Tuesday following heavy rain, in all areas (globally??). If it were a local statistic to the USA then one could argue that when the weather is bad people stay in at the weekends and drink more, then they miss breakfast on a Monday because they're hungover, then on Tuesday they resolve to better health and so eat breakfast cereals, they of course give up on Wednesday on the whole and the cycle repeats.

There are no real causes for imagined realities so there is no gain in asking - or answering - the question if it is indeed made up.

It's entirely plausible that there is an explanation for a similarly absurd sounding but real statistic that relies on causation.

>you wouldn't be so quick to assume //

You're right, I try not assume much but FWIW I only asked if it were sound or not, not if one were likely to do it.

You say it's "biased", I don't understand what you mean. If you always assumed a causative chain when first encountering [direct, gross, longitudinal] correlation where would the bias lie?

[kscaldef]

Because unhappy people aren't fun to be around, so people don't choose to marry them? Or because depressed people are negative about their relationships, just like anything else, so don't see them as worth pursuing? It's really not hard to conjecture mechanisms for a correlation.

[abduhl]

Absolutely not as assuming causation implies you know the directionality of the relationship. Cancer correlates pretty well with old age but you'd be pretty silly to assume that it causes old age.

[pbhjpbhj]

By "assume causation" I meant "assume there is a causative link", which for cancer appears to be true to a degree. So if I specify and say "is it sound to assume a causative link [without specifying the cause and effect direction or that link] where a strong direct correlation is observed" (or similar wording) would you go for that?

There are many examples of course to prompt this clarification - fatness causes over-eating, bruises cause people to get hit, et cetera. There are also likely many examples where the direction of the causation is not clear - poverty and [minor] theft say.

Can you [or anyone] give an example where a causative relationship as a first hypothesis is ludicrous without questioning direction of the relationship?

[neutronicus]

I'd at least want the "can't get a date" group to be separated from the "had the option of marriage, but didn't pursue it" group.