We commonly see this thrown around quite a bit, oftentimes, by the mainstream in order to further their narrative: I have also heard it re-iterated at various points in my education, both lower & higher levels of it.
From an objective standpoint, the "rule" does seem to somewhat make sense: All because a heavy correlation exists doesn't imply it directly caused the phenomenon which we are observing, right?
However, this neglects nuance on various levels.
It forgets that correlations often are a pattern, which showcases to us two traits may generally overlap with one another: Noticing patterns is very important of course, since that's effectively how the blackpill was first theorized. As is a similar case for many other theories, such as those on race, religion, culture, neurodiversity, etc.
In a way, it perhaps provides sort of "clues" to us that they are somewhat interlinked: Almost as if an "undercurrent" is somehow impacting the phenomena influencing both things, thus creating a heavy correlation between the two of them.
From an objective standpoint, the "rule" does seem to somewhat make sense: All because a heavy correlation exists doesn't imply it directly caused the phenomenon which we are observing, right?
However, this neglects nuance on various levels.
It forgets that correlations often are a pattern, which showcases to us two traits may generally overlap with one another: Noticing patterns is very important of course, since that's effectively how the blackpill was first theorized. As is a similar case for many other theories, such as those on race, religion, culture, neurodiversity, etc.
In a way, it perhaps provides sort of "clues" to us that they are somewhat interlinked: Almost as if an "undercurrent" is somehow impacting the phenomena influencing both things, thus creating a heavy correlation between the two of them.
