Would you ever consider an increase in ice cream sales as the cause of an increase in shark attacks? Or possibly vice versa, where the rise in shark attacks is the cause of more ice cream sales. Yet, the two are highly correlated. Shark attacks increase in periods when cream sales are higher. It is the summer, after all, with more people swimming and eating ice cream.
There is no direct cause of one to the other, yet the correlation is high. We can practically see that and understand it. While correlation is merely statistical, causation takes it further and implies that one is directly responsible for the other event.
Yet when it comes to our personal cognitive bias, this becomes problematic. Rarely do we see correlations as merely statistical, but instead, we look under the covers and infer cause. Correlation is our thoughts at play and aligns with the available information we assess. And the various studies we have to support our thinking do not help either since we seek the studies that validate our theories and beliefs. We soon find that the more information we seek, the likelihood that we identify more casual relationships than we identify the origin.
Instead of looking for a cause or concluding too fast, can we objectively assess any correlations and likely dismiss many as parallel events? Look further rather than stop when you validate a belief. We want to enjoy the ice cream, knowing it is not the prequel to an imminent shark attack.
