I normally hate those bell curve memes, but I couldn’t help myself:
Crappy…?
Spurious?
Its only a crappy correlation if you don’t read the rest of the paper with mechanistic, causal explanations provided for the shown graph.
There is no paper. I made this. Its part of some work where I’ve been trying to quantify the “excess deaths per billion in profit”.
I could write said paper.
All you’d have to do is properly cite existing papers on the economic impacts of wealth inequality, economic impacts of ‘extremely high net worth individuals’, cross referenced with relevant climate change papers.
Perhaps ironically, I won’t be writing said paper, because putting that all together is work, for which I almost certainly would not be paid.
Oh, that and having access to all the journals I’d need to cite papers from costs money I don’t have, and publishing also costs money I don’t have.
I am a maimed, former data analyst /spftware dev / db admin with degrees in economics and poli sci, who is currently out of work, doing PT full time, on disability, having recently escaped homelessness, which I fell into because of the lack of and/or many holes in the societal ‘safety net’ of the US.
Hey, maybe I could
not, because I wouldn’t be paidwrite a paper on the collective opportunity cost of lost potential productivity from our broken healthcare, housing, and unemployment insurance system as well… though I am quite confident that would not be any kind of novel publication, because many such papers already exist.data scientist and publishing author also, but not unemployed, over extended.
yeah so I’m trying to take a more ground up quantitative approach. I’m trying to adapt methods from LCA, because when I tried to do it more as a meta analysis, things started getting double counted far too easily. but it’s just an idea that I come back to tinkering on from time to time.
Doing it from the ground up is more work, but … you actually have all the data, or at least a lot more of it, and then you can manage categories and such with more control and granularity…
It does avoid the problem of overlapping meta analyses, but … its also a lot more work, lol.
Shame my wrist can barely tolerate more than short bouts of typing, otherwise I’d offer to help in some way.
yeah I’ve been looking into LCA datasets that might be able to support in come way.
but every time I dig in it always ends up being a rabbit hole. because, for example, the billion in profit from a pharma company has very different externalities than an oil company, or a computer chip company.
put it in a journal when you’re done
I’ll write it on a bathroom stall door
Throwing billionaires into volcanoes is endothermic, as my paper will prove
crappy correlations
Some people just wake up and lie lol
(No ill will towards you, OP :3)
lies, damn lies, and statistics
The number of house in the world also tracks with climate change therefore if we destroy all houses we’ll solve climate change.
The number one thing we need to do to fight climate change is to stop the Browns from losing any more games:
I would like to see the browns loss streak represented on the x axis please
Perfect graph. No notes.
That is the kind of out of the box thinking that we all need. you’re promoted to assistant manager.
there could totally be billionaires in a world without climate change, but currently there is massive economic pressure to keep using fossil fuels
also, ik we all see the correlation between those ideas, but I wanna point out, these specific data points really cant be approximated accurately and definitely not just with a line. like their super random
This post forced me to clarify the terms of this community just a little bit, because I don’t want it to devolve into another place where people bitch about billionaires and workers rights and how terrible everything is and how we’re all going to die because of Racism, Trump , imperialist aggression, climate change, or Penguins. I want this community to be fun and a break from all that stuff. I’m going to leave this post though because It’s not really mean, and some people might find it funny. And when I reread the little community description I wasn’t really clear.
You shouldn’t remove this post because it’s political, but you should remove it because the correlation isn’t crappy enough. Hell, there’s a reasonable argument to be made for a causative link!
I agree.
I don’t think you should be editorializing the content which gets posted. Instead come up with a clear definition/ test of what a “crappy correlation” is, it flies. People are going to post whatever they are going to post and trying to get your own perspective across (even if that perspective is “I want a break from that stuff”) is a political bias. Its bad moderation, and a political perspective in its own right. You don’t control what other people post is kind-of the point, and asking people to match your editorial bent seems inappropriate.
More importantly, whats a good definition for a high quality “crappy correlation” is?
It would seem to me that there may be tiers. I’ve seen some which are just line go up, line go down, not based on any real data. Those are pretty low quality imo. E-C tier.
Second there are those maybe based on real data, but the correlation is spurious, or attributed, but might actually have causal linkage. B tier.
Then there are those based on real data, and the correlation is ridiculous, and not possibly causal. However the correlation might be a low fit (R2 of less than .75). Those are A tier.
Finally there are those based on real data, and the correlation is ridiculous, and not possibly causal. However the correlation is a tight fit (R2 of greater than .75). Those are S tier.
a good definition for what a crappy correlation is is just the spurious correlations from the spurious correlations website that’s in the main link , and the whole point of them is that they’re funny. And by crappy we mean something that is mathematically correlated that it makes absolutely no sense. That’s why it’s funny, and that’s what makes it funny. If you do not make the moderator laugh, you will be executed. There’s no probation, we just go straight to execution. Oh I’m sorry, I meant crucifixion. Let’s do crucifixion.
