#Correlation does not imply causation.

[karenandhenwilson]

[byler-alarmist]

Mike found it harder and harder to date El the more feminine she presented, because it made it harder to lie to himself

🤷‍♂️

[if-loki-was-a-fox]

As much as I love any life series content, ngl this whole real life thing has me just a little bit anxious for its discourse potential

I reeaallly want people to have fun with it and move on, and not turn people not taking it seriously into A Thing because it is objectively not at the same scale as any other seasons

[moniquill]

Further, Pluto lost its status as a planet in 2006. This cannot be a coincidence:

[somechubbynerd]

Is there really a correlation between being trans and being a software developer?

There's a lot of alt-culture wrapped up in the software dev area because writing programs leaves you with a lot of free time, since the whole point of "software" is automation of tasks. If you're good, you aren't spending most of your job time doing much other than tinkering and thinking. Once I had free time to consider my identity actively, I comprehended that I was not the gender I was born with, and my identity has been slowly evolving ever since as I explore myself in new avenues.

[condescending-jerk]

but also even if your past self was actually better than you and you decide that you want to be more like that person again

the right way to do it is definitely not to just do the easy things which are also the worst things

sometimes if you want something you actually need to work for it

i guess i never really accepted that concept

[traditional-latin-math]

The whole "mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" level of obsession with "correlation does not imply causation" has done incalculable harm to our collective ability to evaluate evidence.

We kinda went from "hey guys make sure you think more than surface deep when presented with numerical evidence" to "no two numbers ever have anything to do with each other ever"

[lunaiz4-misc]

This is entirely anecdotal, but. I think that correlation may exist in the opposite direction as well. I've always been a weird (ND) kid. I've always made weird (also ND) friends. Some of them have diagnoses (ASD, ADHD, depression, anxiety) now, and some of them don't. But almost all of them have some kind of gender fuckery going on. I suspect the cause is very simple - they were looking for answers as to why their brains were Like This, they opened themselves up to all the possibilities, and they *found* something. Something they maybe weren't expecting.

Hell, even I started to question, when I saw every single one of my childhood friends come out as some flavor of trans. I'm not. But I checked.

something that should be taken with a grain of salt are the statistics talking about the high rates of mental illness + neurodivergence among trans people (ocd, bpd, adhd, autism, etc)

I see both sides of the political spectrum taking these studies at face value - conservatives say we're broken, and trans people try to come up with reasons why for example autism + gender dysphoria makes sense and why one of them feeds into another

at the end of the day you have to remember that we're the one category of people on this planet who are legally required to go see a psychiatrist in order to receive non-psychiatric medication and surgeries.

more trans people are in therapy by law than any other demographic of people, and as a result, this captures more comorbidities.

if I had to look at my own family & rates of mental illness?

mom, dad, 2 maternal aunts, maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother, sister, sibling, and me all have OCD.

7/9 of them are cishet, never been to therapy, never diagnosed. 2/9 are trans, required therapy for hormone treatment, and were diagnosed.

you don't have to do any math to just see that the resulting statistics end up intensely skewed.

and we can think back to how autism was virtually never diagnosed more than 50 years ago - ruling out any grandparents being included in statistics - and even my parents' generation (they're in their 60s now) wouldn't have been included either.

I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to accept these studies uncritically. a lot of these things are hereditary and far more prevalent in the overall population than people realize

[cherrybomb107]

After making that essay about all my gripes with act three, I wanna delve into what rubbed me the wrong way about episode seven. Now, don’t get me wrong, it is my second favorite episode of the season (right behind episode four) but everything just felt off, and now I’m able to explain why.

It felt fake. Artificial. Too good to be true. Too polished. Everyone in Zaun was basically a Piltie lite and I hated to see it. I know Zaun doesn’t even technically exist, as it never did officially get its freedom, but Piltover and Zaun are known as twin cities for a reason. They are intertwined, yes, but also completely different. Zaun has its own vibe. It’s punk, patchwork, unpolished, mismatched. But also vibrant, brilliant, thoughtfully crafted and beautiful in its own way. It’s unique. It feels so real, and for the au to strip all that away and make Zaun feel like a shell of its former self was not it.

Zaun has such a rich culture. Not without its own host of flaws ofc, but what culture is perfect? And obviously there are political reasons for why Zaunites do things the way they do (it’s because Piltover’s oppressions forces them to get creative). While I resent the reasons as to why Zaunites have to be so resourceful and creative, I adore the things they were able to build in spite of their hardships. Makes me identify with Zaun even more. The au took all that away. Everything that made Zaun what it is wasn’t there, and I didn’t care for it.

Furthermore, the whole au falls apart if you stop and think about it. Why would Vi’s death be anything more than a drop in the bucket to Piltover? They had been oppressing Zaun for centuries? Vi is not only a Zaunite, but she was also a teenager. There’s a lot to be said about how teenagers aren’t really seen as kids by a lot of folks, and are “less innocent” and their lives are seen as “less important” (though ofc no one would admit that have that kind of bias). Plus when you consider that by virtue of being a Zaunite, Vi would already be considered “less than”, her life would not matter to Piltover WHATSOEVER. Best case, and I do mean best case scenario, they give Vander some financial compensation so he could afford to give Vi the proper funeral she deserves. But I’d bet money they never would’ve even considered doing that if I’m being realistic.

Also, that’s just a horrible message to send. Vi, the parentified child, who spent her whole life fighting like hell to protect her loved ones, had to die in order for not just her family, but her city to flourish. HUH??? That’s an awful thing to imply! Vi dying would NOT have lead to everyone else being fine. It would not have led Vander and Silco to forgive each other. It would NOT led to Zaun prospering economically. It would not have led to Zaun becoming just like Piltover in the worst of ways. That doesn’t even make any sense! Correlation does not equal causation, but those two things have no correlation to begin with! Obviously I know that’s not the message the writers meant to convey, but that’s what they ended up doing imo, and I don’t like that.

Lastly, why are we acting like Hextech is the problem? The oppressive system of Piltover existed way before Hextech came along, so why would its lack of being there affect things that much? Cause if not Hextech, some other revolutionary technology would’ve been invented that somehow only benefits some and hurts everyone else who isn’t as privileged. And yes, ofc I know Hextech only exists precisely BECAUSE of the systemic inequalities between Piltover and Zaun, but it is by no means wholly responsible for these inequalities. Responsible for widening the gap between Piltover and Zaun? Yes! Responsible for the existence of the gap in the first place? Hell no! And it felt like it was framed that way.

Coming back to this post to add something in light of Amanda’s recent comments. I love this episode. I do. Nothing will change that. But it feels like Amanda is going out of her way to make me hate this episode because of her dumbass comment. No an au episode is not a substitute for proper development of main universe Timebomb. I’d even go so far as to say that au Timebomb and mu Timebomb dealt with such fundamentally different circumstances that they might as well be two different couples, and showing mu Timebomb develop isn’t “rehashing” at all. I love the au episode. But that’s not what I’m here for. I’m here for MY Timebomb. I care about the development of THEIR relationship, not some au bottle episode with their au counterparts! Timebomb didn’t share a single meaningful interaction/conversation onscreen. They have no shortage of things to talk about or issues to work through. But we never got to see it. It has to be “left up to interpretation” which will only give fuel to the antis who insist that Ekko only loves au Powder and not his Jinx. Cause that’s all that was shown! God forbid you call using dms and interviews as a crutch to supplement what should’ve been made explicitly clear in the show bad writing though. Here come the dick eaters rattling off excuses about “media literacy”🙄🙄🙄

Anyways TL;DR I wasn’t a fan of the au episode because I felt like it unintentionally sent a horrible message and didn’t stay true to what makes Zaun, Zaun. It ripped out all its best parts and functionally turned it into Piltover Jr. and a fan of that I am NOT

[adharastarlight]

Slughorn: Mr Black, your homework is a day late

Regulus: I was off ill yesterday

Slughorn: you're conviently off a lot

Regulus: correlation does not imply causation

Slughorn: Mr Blac-

Regulus: listen sir, if you want to get onto this boat you should know that there are already six people here. One of them is screaming in the back, another is passed out and half falling out, two of them are rowing backwards, one of them is desperately rowing and wishing he could stick his head into the water and drown and the other is fucking critising everything he is doing. So if you want to pursue this conversation and get on this boat, you're fucking rowing

Slughorn: ...lovely to have you back in class, Mr Black

Regulus, sacrastically: wonderful to be here

[sneakyboymerlin]

It appears that a CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL (said with love) has taken Merlin’s immortality into doubt… Once again I find myself burdened with writing beautiful Merlin analysis.

Merlin’s lengthy longevity is, of course, visually confirmed at the end of 5x13 when we see him alive and well in the modern day, making him approximately 1,500 years old now. This is, however, not the sole factor that implies his immortality.

Physically, Merlin has had many “near misses” with death which were likely actual deaths he and others (the audience included) dismissed due to plausible deniability. In 1x04 for example, Merlin stops breathing and his heart stops shortly after Gaius and Gwen administer the potion. Gaius does not attempt to resuscitate him, yet Merlin comes back fully cognizant anyway, with no external influence.

He is also struck directly by the Dorocha, a spirit whose touch no mortal has ever survived. Again, there is plausible deniability here due to Merlin’s powerful magic. However, the writers chose to specify that no mortal has ever survived their touch. There are other ways that the Dorocha’s death-touch could have been communicated, but it was instead made plain that there is no history of mortals specifically surviving the onslaught.

This is not the only instance where human mortality is mentioned only for Merlin to be excepted from the given conditions. Cornelius Sigan is another foe who cannot be overcome easily. However, Gaius chooses to express this in terms of mortality: “Sigan is immortal and you [Merlin] are not.” Miraculously, Merlin survives their standoff. Further, in 1x07, Merlin sees Avalon, which apparently cannot be seen by any mortal until death. Merlin says outright, “I’ve seen it and I’m still here.” In hindsight, it becomes clear that these hints are intentional foreshadowing and teasing hidden in idiomatic language. Lancelot also tells Merlin that his magic “doesn’t make [him] immortal,” which in itself means little in regards to Merlin’s mortality status, but in context brings to light further evidence of authorial intent: Merlin is the only character to be on the receiving end of such lines where his mortality is questioned or otherwise put to the test. No other character is subject to this dialogue full of double meaning.

Aside from these and similar examples, the nearest verbal confirmations we receive actually begin quite early on. In 1x08, Merlin is referred to by the name “Emrys,” which translates directly as “Immortal One,” though Merlin himself does not know it. Again, plausible deniability allows for other interpretations of this description; however, since Merlin happens to carry multiple of the defining traits of immortality (extreme longevity and improbable survival, especially after death has occurred), it is likely that this correlation lends credence to causation.

Most forgotten, and perhaps most importantly, is Balinor’s motivational speech to Merlin in the Crystal Cave. His revelation that Merlin “always will be” is of course another implication of immortality that is soon clouded by Balinor’s comparison to his own spirit’s unending life; however, this is not the key factor in understanding Merlin’s immortality. It is only one half of Balinor’s statement. The full line is: “[That] you have always been… and always will be.” This implies that not only will Merlin live infinitely into the future (as seen in the following episode), but that he has existed since the dawn of time, even prior to his human incarnation. Merlin is magic itself, which cannot be made or unmade, just as energy cannot be created or destroyed — only transferred. His human form is essentially a transference of magic from the cycles of nature to a single rigid life form.

Now, there are other questions on limits and constraints that the show does not touch on. For example, since Merlin was not formerly human and is — essentially — magic that was transformed into a human, could he be transformed back to a prior, unconscious state, returning to nature and therefore fulfilling “death” by human terms? Is he forever trapped in this human form by whatever gods confined him to it, or is his form more fluid than his consciousness? Regardless, these do not negate the fact that he is immortal by human standards.

It can be inferred that the writers had planned this from the start. They had certainly planned for Arthur to find out about Merlin’s magic in the series finale, Arthur’s death, and the sugarcoating that he will rise again when Albion’s need is greatest. The finale implies that Merlin will be reunited with Arthur again someday, even if that day is centuries away — though I do believe fandom often exaggerates his desperation. Merlin is not single-mindedly thinking of nothing but Arthur: in 5x13, he just happens to be walking by and pauses briefly (indicating that he remembers) only to lift his head and move forward with his own life. It serves primarily as a confirmation that he has found peace and is no longer tortured by it. And how could he be after over 1,000 years?

I delve more into specific examples that prove Merlin’s immortality here and here for those interested in further ✨ research ✨

[bastionofbibliophiles]

[relevant-wikipedia-articles]

I like trains

(Gets hit by a train)

[creature-wizard]

"I had a health problem but then I did [insert alternative health treatment], and it was miraculously healed!"

Wonderful! I'm so happy for you! But before you go prescribing it to people with similar problems, ask yourself - what does the overall evidence suggest about the efficacy of X? Are your results typical, or even common?

Correlation does not imply causation, and even if there was a causal relationship, it doesn't necessarily mean that other people will be able to get the exact same results as you.

I have no doubt in my mind that miraculous healings happen at least sometimes, because I've known of people who had these things happen. But, I've also known - personally known - people who literally died because they relied on what they thought was responsible for these other miraculous healings.

Thing is, we still don't know exactly why these things happen or not. We have lots of ideas, but the more we start looking around and looking into things, the less evidence we can find to suggest that any of them are correct. At this point, "they held their mouths wrong" is as good of an explanation as any.

[xkcd-for-that]

I found this blog just a few days ago and today there was one in my uni lecture! The one about correlation and causation!! I had never realised how ubiquitous they are!!

They're very popular among STEM folks, that's for sure! The referenced comic, for those unfamiliar:

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

[transmutationisms]

these tags annoyed me to be honest

1. PCOS is a bad point of comparison because despite the name, diagnosis is not *supposed to be* done on the primary basis of finding cysts in the ovaries; these are common and not inherently of concern. instead, the more indicative biomarker is the hormone test (high levels of testosterone *throughout the menstrual period*, with corresponding disruption to the expected/typical fluctuations in estrogen/progesterone) but often diagnosis is done more on the basis of a physical exam ('exam') confirming characteristics such as hairiness or adiposity. this absolutely DOES result in PCOS overdiagnosis for some demographics; while a real biological condition, PCOS is also a load-bearing diagnostic term in the enforcement of very specific standards of (white) femininity and its use also frequently masks, for example, the frequency of hypothalamic amenorrhea (HA) secondary to chronic energy deficiency (as in anorexia), which doctors are loathe to diagnose because they view weight loss as prima facie good

2. the reason it matters that psychiatric diagnoses do not have a 'biology' is not because every disease must have a single specific biomarker; it is correct that some do not. however, the way patient complaints are sifted into categories labelled 'psychiatric' versus '(otherwise) medical' begins essentially with determining whether the distress is 'physical' or 'mental'. in other words, in the case of, say, the chronic fatigue syndrome (famously, lacking a known specific biomarker), the symptoms being investigated by the non-psychiatrist physician are still physical (PEM; mast cell dysregulation; pain; etc) whereas a diagnosis of depression may be accompanied by, but requires no, physical symptoms or presentation. the psychiatric claim that its diagnoses have biological causes and correlates is specifically a claim about the role of neurobiology in the causation of affective states; thus, the comparison to physical complaints is meaningless here

3. this person goes on to claim that depressives do in fact share, though not universally, certain biomarkers such as mitochondrial dysregulations. such claims typically come from various imaging studies plagued with systemic problems in the selection and definition of patient populations as well as the subjectivity of result interpretation and analysis. these claims are not well supported and typically rely on circular selection and definition of patient populations

4. speaking philosophically, it is in fact often correct to challenge the notion that a physical 'disease' chronically lacking a specific biomarker is indeed a disease, in any sense besides the colloquial one. that is, diseases that cannot be correlated with one cause or presentation are often better understood as 'syndromes', which is to say, as a taxonomical heuristic that is likely grouping together multiple disparate physical (anatomical, physiological, functional, &c) problems with multiple disparate causes. this is almost certainly the case for chronic fatigue syndrome, for example. this is a philosophical distinction that matters for research and understanding, and does not mean or imply anything to minimise or contradict the patient experience of the syndrome or symptoms. it matters because, for instance, CFS triggered by the epstein-barr virus may indeed turn out to have different disease mechanisms to CFS triggered by, say, covid-19, or may have different specific mechanisms when running in certain families, and so on. distinguishing these much more specific presentations, and possibly distinct diseases, from the current discursive schema of the overlying syndrome is potentially very good for patients, who likely have different needs and treatments to one another despite currently all sharing the same label in their charts

5. which goes back to an overlying point, which is that (despite frequent defensiveness to the contrary), whether or not something is a disease does not inherently tell us anything about its reality, its severity, its cause, the moral status of its sufferers, &c