May I interrupt you for a moment to point you to an interesting article about reading? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain
"Proust and the Squid" by Maryanne Wolf (see page 2 of the article) sounds like another book that might be worth reading. Nice book title, too.
Originally posted by NordlysDamn it, Noodles! ðŸ˜
May I interrupt you for a moment to point you to an interesting article about reading? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain
"Proust and the Squid" by Maryanne Wolf (see page 2 of the article) sounds like another book that might be worth reading. Nice book title, too.
This is serious as CANCER.
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysI don't think the author of the article has ever read a science book - rule #1 is the correlation does not imply causation. But I will take a look for "Proust and the Squid"! That does sound like a neat book. 🙂
May I interrupt you for a moment to point you to an interesting article about reading? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain
"Proust and the Squid" by Maryanne Wolf (see page 2 of the article) sounds like another book that might be worth reading. Nice book title, too.
Originally posted by PBE6Musicophilia
I've been reading books about psychology, the brain, and sociology (and one about physics) lately, and just like my feelings on frilly toothpicks, I'm for 'em!! Anyone read anything along those lines recently that they enjoyed? Also, if the title/cover are bold enough, I'll switch gears and read any fun suggestions. Even Emily Dickinson...but only if she poses nude on the cover.
Originally posted by PBE6Does the author of the article ever say that? I must admit I haven't read all of it carefully (still plan to do that...), but in the parts I have read, I haven't seen this happen.
I don't think the author of the article has ever read a science book - rule #1 is the correlation does not imply causation.
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensNoodles recommended that one too. I think I'll have to pick it up! I read one that covers similar subject matter, "This Is Your Brain On Music" by David Levitin, so this would be a great way to sort out the truth from some possibly subtle fictions. Thanks for the suggestion! 🙂
Musicophilia
Originally posted by NordlysUmm, yeah...the first two paragraphs contain about a dozen statistics about reading, and Mr. Crain ends the second paragraph by quoting one of the conclusions of the study by the N.E.A. that “Poor reading skills correlate heavily with lack of employment, lower wages, and fewer opportunities for advancement.”
Does the author of the article ever say that? I must admit I haven't read all of it carefully (still plan to do that...), but in the parts I have read, I haven't seen this happen.
Of course, any study worth its salt would either propose a mechanism linking the two, or state that the matter requires further research (like trying a new study that would eliminate any competing causes of lack of employment, such as controlling for temporary or local economic depression, disparity in hiring practices due to race, problems with or changes to the definition of "poor reading skills" over time, etc...). I doubt the author was intentionally trying to mislead anyone, but after reading "Freakonomics" I've noticed that newspaper and magazine articles are more concerned with controversial or surprising results of studies than with subtleties of the science.
Originally posted by PBE6Well, sort of recommended - as I haven't read it yet myself, I can't really recommend it, but it sounds interesting. Another interesting book about music and the brain that I have read is "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy" by Robert Jourdain: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/books/Jourdain97.html
Noodles recommended that one too.
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6You have to understand that in Social Sciences correlation (in a broad sense, not simply sample correlation but within statistical models) most of the times is the only thing we DO have. Causation is simply impossible to prove statistically. No matter how many instrumental variables, filtering techniques, etc., because data doesn't come from a controlled experience.
Umm, yeah...the first two paragraphs contain about a dozen statistics about reading, and Mr. Crain ends the second paragraph by quoting one of the conclusions of the study by the N.E.A. that “Poor reading skills correlate heavily with lack of employment, lower wages, and fewer opportunities for advancement.”
Of course, any study worth its salt would either p ed with controversial or surprising results of studies than with subtleties of the science.
Econometricians and statisticians try to develop better ways to ensure that we may correct for a significant amount of problems, but the fact remains that we can never exclude with any degree of certainty the possibility of a hidden variable that simply never occurred to anyone.
So, yes, of course correlation doesn't prove causation. But correlation, in many senses, is viewed as evidence for causation. The idea is that although mistakes can be made (when they are not apparent at the time to peer reviewers), these mistakes can be improved or corrected with future publications. If we didn't risk those mistakes, we wouldn't actually have learned what we already know in these sciences.