There was a little boy who loved to ask why and noticed a very strange phenomenon, the sun rises every morning and disappears at night. He couldn't figure out why, and then he discovered a secret: their house sitter also came in the morning and went back at night. The little boy wondered if the sun also went home with the nanny. So, the little boy came to a conclusion:

Because the nanny went home, the sun also went home with her.

This is, of course, wrong; the sun going down and the nanny going home are only correlations, not causality (what causality?). Because 1 is less than 2 and 2 is less than 3, so 1 is also less than 3).

But we often confuse correlation and causation in our lives, and some of them are still studies made by experts, such as

"Sociologists have found that ice cream sales are directly proportional to the crime rate, and that the higher the ice cream sales, the higher the crime rate."

"People who smoke don't get the flu because the nicotine in tobacco kills the flu virus"

Of course you're against it, but that's a conclusion that experts have studied, and it's backed up by data that you have to believe.

But we have to think about this: is there only one explanation for a result? Is crime up just because ice cream sales are up?

Obviously not, the rise in crime is related to a variety of factors such as the security of an area, culture, seasonal temperatures, etc.

Similarly, the rise in crime is due to the fact that ice cream sales have gone up.

By the same token, when ice cream sales go up, the crime rate goes up; they are correlated, not causal. Ice cream sales rise because the temperature rises, people in hot conditions, easy to impulse, and so triggered crime. In other words, it is not the sales of ice cream that affects the crime rate, but the temperature that affects the crime rate.

Go back to the case of "smokers don't get the flu".

People who smoke don't get the flu because the nicotine in tobacco kills the flu virus. According to experts, nicotine does kill the flu virus, but is there only one explanation?

Of course not, such as the following several explanations:

1, some people are good, the flu virus immunity, he happened to smoke, so the wrong that he did not get the flu is because he smoked (flu and smoking only correlation does not have causality).

2. Smokers have good hand-washing habits and wash their hands every time they smoke, blocking the spread of the virus.

After reading this article, I want you to have the ability, when someone explains a point to us: because of what so what, we have to ask ourselves two questions: 1, there is no other explanation; 2, is it causation, or correlation.