LOGICAL FALLACY – you are looking at this picture, then reading this article. Fallacious conclusion: this picture is making you read the article. Well it might be, but more likely is confusion of Causation and Correlation.
Confusing Causation and Correlation – The Antipattern
Anti Pattern Name: Confusing Causation and Correlation
Type: Logical Fallacy
Problem: The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows: A occurs in correlation with B, therefore, A causes B.
This is fallacious because:
- A may be the cause of B
- B may be the cause of A
- Some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B
- There may be a combination of the three relationships above
- The “relationship” could be coincidental
Context: Confusing correlation and causation leads to inaccurate conclusions.
Forces: Statistical significance of data sets, nature of attributes, complexity of domain, understanding of domain.
Resulting Context: False conclusion, missed opportunities (e.g. the unknown third factor (above) may underlie a critical business opportunity). If causation is confused it may be concluded that B causes A resulting in a complete reversal of strategy.
Solution(s): Look for attributes common to observed phenomena, hypothesise causality based on experience, known facts and likelihood. Be cognisant of logical fallacy and risks of ‘jumping to conclusions’.
Further Reading on Logical and Strategic Thinking
- The Decision Book: Fifty Models for Strategic Thinking (The Tschapeller and Kyogenus Collection)
- Algorithms To Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- Thinking: The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction
- An Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches to Decision Making
- Thinking, Fast and Slow