Hacker News Reader

Comment by fortythirteen | Hacker News Reader

Correlation implied as causation.

Here is another correlation into causation article linking cardiovascular fitness to IQ[0]

Another way to look at it can be from the per-capita relation of economic class to fitness[1]. It is entirely possible that, because people higher up the economic ladder are more likely to be fit, and because they are more likely to receive better prenatal care, generally have better nutrition, and give their children more educational opportunities, that the actual cause may be economic status.

[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quilted-science/2009...

[1] https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/06/10/the-correla...

View on HN

Actually its a case of "Read the whole article, and NOT just the headline, before leaving a comment" syndrome.

The study was presented on mice who all lived in the same laboratory in identical little cages. They were not exposed to various economic classes. We don't need to run a per-capita relational analysis on them because they were mice... living in cages. One group of mice was provided tools like an exercise wheel in their cages after they reached adulthood to provide them means of exercising, which they took advantage of. The male mice that exercised sired "smarter" offspring (details into how they make that determination are in the article) even when paired with sedentary females.

Now yes I agree with you that there is a strong relationship in humans between exercise and economic class. On average humans with higher economic status tend to be more fit. There are numerous reasons for this. However, that really doesn't have anything to do with this study. This study concluded that adult males who exercise regularly, pass positive mental traits to their offspring. You could later argue that therefore a higher percentages of kids from high economic classes will display these same desirable mental traits... which I would probably agree with, but that is an entirely different argument than what is made in this study.

So yes take the 3 minutes that it takes to read this 1,200 or so word article before leaving a comment claiming that the article is wrong.

Actually, it is not correlation implied as causation.

See https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(18)304...

"Highlights

•Exercising male mice pass a cognitive benefit to their offspring

•This phenomenon is mediated by altered expression of sperm RNA

•Levels of miR212/132 in sperm play a key role in this intergenerational effect"

This appears to be causation implied as causation.

It's actually a perfect example of correlation to causation. The title could easily have been "fathers perpetually kept in cramped quarters produce dumb babies".

This article is about a study done on mice. Having not read the underlying study, and it not being my field, I can't speak to how well the article articulates the study's findings, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it with the "correlation does not imply causation" argument.

> on mice

And the article automatically relates it to humans, when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.

>And the article automatically relates it to humans,

From the article:

"Of course, this study involved mice and not men and cannot tell us whether the same processes occur in people."

> when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.

It is unethical to run certain studies on humans, which is why the mice models are used (also pigs, fish, flies, worms, etc) initially. And such models have been fantastically successful. It seems like you are rather unfamiliar with the scientific process...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com