Correlation does not imply causation

>correlation does not imply causation

Attached: 1536610506388.jpg (1000x1000, 115K)

Other urls found in this thread:

link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018312829025
morgana.unimore.it/bertocchi_graziella/papers/womenweb.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

it doesn't...

>slippery slope fallacy

Attached: derp happy soyboy.png (1000x1000, 47K)

>this one study which was refuted several years ago is not a appropriate counter point

Attached: IMG_4473.jpg (714x430, 38K)

Attached: ad-hominem.jpg (2048x833, 131K)

>be paki "man"
>get raped by indian female rape gangs

Attached: income and strength female male.png (825x592, 70K)

why would someone survey this

>i argue with FACTS

Attached: eye of the tiger.jpg (600x315, 25K)

Ik, grip strength?!?! What even calls for a survey for that?

Technically, but it doesn't work in the way reddit thinks it does. Redditors basically apply it like this:
>[Confronted with statistics about single mothers and juvenile delinquency]
>MUH CORRELATION! MUH CAUSATION!

While it isn't true that mere correlation can be coincidence, the entirety of the scientific corpus relies on distilling causation from correlation. Generally by repeating the same experiments over and over again and changing various variables to see how they effect the correlation.

It's the same as shouting "muh appeal to authority!". An appeal to authority can be valid, if the authority is legitimate. Again, if you contest this then you need to burn the entire corpus as it is full of footnotes referring to sources that are trusted based on their authority and reputation.

Same with the slippery slope: it CAN be valid reasoning, under the right circumstances. If I said "giving women the vote is the first step on the slippery slope towards SOCIALISM!" and I can back this up by showing that in vairous Western countries the welfare state exploded after giving women suffrage, then this is entirely valid reasoning.

Ironically enough, what you're doing her is also a fallacy. The fallacy fallacy.

Grip strength is inversely correlated with mortality, so it's an easy way to measure health.

Because grip strength is generally a good predictor of overall strength.

Still, I'm surprised Swedish "men" are that high.

I think the weak Nord is a meme. Most blondes I've seen are tall and strong like Chad. Sweden cuckoldry is likely due to high jewish population.

Why are swedish men so strong compared to the rest of the world???

>If I said "giving women the vote is the first step on the slippery slope towards SOCIALISM!" and I can back this up by showing that in vairous Western countries the welfare state exploded after giving women suffrage, then this is entirely valid reasoning.
but the welfare state exploded for specific and documented reasons that have nothing to do with giving women suffrage
also the welfare state in most western countries has been gradually dismantled since the 80's so women's suffrage hasn't lead to SOCIALISM at all

Must be because the weak ones all identify as women.

>but the welfare state exploded for specific and documented reasons that have nothing to do with giving women suffrage
Of course not.
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018312829025
morgana.unimore.it/bertocchi_graziella/papers/womenweb.pdf

The welfare state existed in some countries before the introduction of female suffrage and was absent in others. However, all the states that didn't have a welfare state before female suffrage ended up with one after it, and all the states that had a welfare state before female suffrage had a significantly expanded one after female suffrage.

It's perhaps not the condicio sine qua non, but women's natural tendency towards the left (as dictated by hypergamy) is undeniably a contributing factor to the fact that there currently isn't a single Western government that isn't heavily in debt. If the country's total state debt is "only" 60% of its GDP, that's considered a "balanced" budget nowadays.

God, I wish that were me.

>incels are now trying to blame women for public debt
wew

As opposed to? Who else votes for increasingly more spending despite the budget already being stretched further than it should logically go? The Jews? The templars? Was it aliens? Or is it a group of people who are objectively less productive than men, have a biological instinct to suck up to whoever can provide them with the most resources and vote based on emotion rather than logic?

This shit is why the West will never uncuck itself. It condemns the tree while praising its roots.

>Who else votes for increasingly more spending despite the budget already being stretched further than it should logically go?
according to our last elections, racists and southern italians

>OCCAMS RAZORS ENTAILS THAT

Attached: 1542043747887.png (647x740, 167K)

>YOU CAN'T DIRECTLY QUOTE THE WORD OF GOD THAT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

Attached: soyboy16.jpg (631x482, 37K)

>Reject your logic without explaining why
>That's the...

>racists
You guys are ground zero for illegal immigration in Europe, it's not racist to want to change that.