What Are Friends for? A Longer Life
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"In 2006, a study of nearly 3,000 nurses with breast cancer found that women without close friends were four times as likely to die from the disease as women with 10 or more friends."
The results cited in the article seem to only imply a correlation. It seems like the author of the article implied causation to add a bit of journalistic flair. After all, it would be a much less interesting article if it simply stated correlations.
You could always argue that there was a common cause to both the lack of friends and the lack of survival. Perhaps you'd call it a 'life force' until you worked out the details. Perhaps there is a gene that manifests as both solitude seeking and reduced survival options.
Whatever the case I think a lot of people would prefer articles like this to at least mention that there are other possibilities rather than spending time on fluffy and frankly uninteresting anecdotes.
However if we take the case of smoking we may say smoking does not cause cancer it only seems to be an ingredient which is found when people die of cancer. I mean technically correlation does not imply causation, but practically in some cases as the one the article is talking about it kinda does. Sure enough there might be something else which causes people to seek friends and that very same thing causes people to die earlier, however what we know is that having friends is a good thing and it seems they prolong your life. Now the way I formulated the last sentence it sounds like correlation but really it implies causation.
If you have a particular set of sites that you don't want to see, you can use Xichekolas' Greasemonkey script to filter them out. It adds a configuration "toolkit" link to the HN page header. (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25039)