Recent comments in /f/sports

losprimera t1_j8mhme1 wrote

correlation is not causation. For example, even if majority of shooters are all the things you claimed, consider their representative significance: if for each loner/incel/whatever there is one shooter, then there is singificant correlation. I doubt anyone has data to support a claim like this. How does one measure and define an incel in a way that is statistically relevant anyway? yea i dont know. cuz if its 1 shooter/10000 loner/incel/whatever, then its a somewhat weak correlation. For example, US national homicide rate is 6.5/100,000 people.

This is also not necessarily causation, e.g. did they become shooters BECAUSE of those mentioned factors? Because if everyone somewhat fits those descriptions (and they do. sexual activity and marriage rates are generally on the decline. The US dept of Health and Human Services do track some of that data.) then there is weak reason to presuppose causation beyond a simple observation that both are on the increase and bears monitoring.

Edit: This is actually a good thread ill be sure to use in classroom instruction.

1