Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Level3Kobold t1_je4dc24 wrote

That graph makes me think that research spending does not improve HDI.

According to the graph, about half of latin american countries spend considerably less on research than Brazil does, but have higher HDI anyway.

It looks like having a higher HDI simply allows countries to contribute more money to research - which some of them choose to do and others don't.

306

kingkeren t1_je4h4df wrote

Yep. Remember, every person that confuses correlation and causation ends up dead

176

ProLibertateCH t1_je4tgmj wrote

But correlation is still a necessary condition for causation. Necessary, not sufficient. So to die, you first need to live. Does life cause death ? Until someone lives eternally, we can’t really tell…

29

scheav t1_je55lsj wrote

You have have causation without correlation.

15

Klass13 t1_je5zr1v wrote

I've heard this but not entirely how it would work, care to elaborate? Is it because there may be another different variable which cancels out the causality effect leaving non observable correlation?

6

compounding t1_je6a9wj wrote

That’s one case, yes. Think of a situation where the causal effect is only responsible for a small portion of the observed outcomes, so the gross correlation could even run backwards due to other factors despite known causation in part of the sample.

Or there could be other causal factors stemming from the original cause that push back the observed correlation which need to be accounted for. Certain genes are known to cause breast cancer at such a high rate that everyone who screens positive for them might choose to get double mastectomies, causing breast cancer rates to actually fall among that group. I don’t think this is actually true, but it’s a hypothetical example of a case where no or even reverse correlation might exist despite known and strong causation.

6

Klass13 t1_je6ro8m wrote

That's amazing, thanks! Do you happen to know any good subreddit about stats and whatnot?

2

compounding t1_je7g0uy wrote

Not in particular to stats, no, but I also haven’t really looked for something like that.

Maybe the only place I know that might have a higher than usual concentration would be /r/slatestarcodex, which has some small overlapping interest in Bayesian reasoning and is generally more interested than other communities in using stats accurately rather than just as a tool to prove pre-determined point (sometimes).

1

SerialStateLineXer t1_je83s9x wrote

People who take antidepressants are more depressed than people who do not. If we just look at the correlation, we might assume that antidepressants cause depression, but the opposite is true.

In this case, there's still a correlation, but the sign is the opposite of the true causal effect of taking antidepressants.

Alternatively, consider a car being driven over a hilly road at a constant speed. When the car is going uphill, it's burning more gas. There's no correlation between speed and gas consumption, but gas consumption increases speed.

3

958958958 t1_je5phjg wrote

Though only in a dataset of 1, right? Or is there something I'm missing?

2

bluesam3 t1_je6cva8 wrote

No, you can have it in datasets of any size. If X causes Y, but also it just happens that in your dataset there's some other factor Z that causes (not Y) and happens to correlate strongly with X (in your dataset). For example, if exposure to some substance causes cancer, but people who are exposed to that substance tend to be exposed to vast quantities of it that kill them immediately (thereby preventing the vast majority of them from living long enough to develop cancer), you'd have a definite causation, but no (or even a reversed) correlation.

3

958958958 t1_jeetylt wrote

Good point! I think was more considering this within the context of a single dataset, without outside knowledge. If I read your example correctly (please correct me if I don't), the dataset described above would not contain evidence of X causing Y or if the dampening effect of Z is not complete X would correlate with Y (though perhaps weakly). Thought there may again be something I'm missing ;)

1

sciencesebi3 t1_je8w0ed wrote

Lolwhut. It's the other way around...

I'm screenshotting this

1

Glenster118 t1_je6hlcq wrote

Aye. Wealthy countries can spend on r&d and initiatives that improve HDI.

6

Astrovik3 t1_je57uu0 wrote

Yeah, i don't think so either. Brazil and Ireland spends almost the same amount on R&D, but Ireland has .95 and Brazil .75...

5

Temporary-Alarm-744 t1_je741l4 wrote

I would say the indigenous slaughter holds it back quite a bit

4

e2357 t1_je5mo1g wrote

Well, of course that even a reasonably designated investment in research and development will not have an immediate impact in HDI and will not be the only factor contributing to it. Do you know how long have Brazil been investing this much? Or how reasonable this expenditure is? If any, from this graph, Brazil looks more like an outlier. Similar to China, whose HDI have been actually improving a lot during last decades and this correlates well with its R&D level of investment. Not the HDI number itself but the rate of improvement of it.

5

Level3Kobold t1_je5neyh wrote

>Not the HDI number itself but the rate of improvement of it.

That would probably be a more useful piece of information to graph.

4

ArnoF7 t1_je510x4 wrote

Yes it’s complicated. If you are a petro state, or rich in some natural resources. Then you don’t have to spend so much on RD to live a cushy life.

It can also be hard to reap the rewards from RD investment. A lot of high tech industries go through several consolidations and only the very top can remain and control the market. For example semiconductor, aerospace and etc. Being okayish doesn’t bring much in return in too many industries.

4

Level3Kobold t1_je52yih wrote

>Being okayish doesn’t bring much in return in too many industries.

I think this is a major factor. There's no prize for second place when it comes to R&D. Especially if you don't have the infrastructure to actually make use of the R you're D'ing.

2

ArnoF7 t1_je54egq wrote

I wouldn’t say all industries have no place for the second place, but yeah this is true for a decent many

3

CaptainSasquatch t1_je5pcrp wrote

> It looks like having a higher HDI simply allows countries to contribute more money to research - which some of them choose to do and others don't.

It could be even more complicated than that. R&D could lead to higher HDI, but there could be structural problems that prevent both of them from increasing. Governments in now HDI countries may struggle with state capacity to collect taxes/revenue and not be able to subsidize research and are also not able to provide basic rule of law and order for development. There may be problems with corruption and private R&D might not have any returns because other politically connected businesses will steal their innovations with impunity.

I'd be willing to believe that R&D/investments in technology can cause higher development. You can look at the late developing east Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) as a possible example. The problem is that most poorer countries have problems that prevent development or sustained investment in R&D.

2

Artoriuz t1_je5qmvo wrote

Brazil is a much larger country and also much more diverse. We have wildly different regions with wildly different histories.

The São Paulo state, for example, has an area comparable to the UK and a HDI of roughly 0.83, which is roughly on par with the other South American countries.

2

AndLD t1_je79sf4 wrote

Also 1,5 could be considered a good ratio for research investment, were with good strategies should work as good as more investment

1

Gigagondor t1_jegzcbn wrote

It would be better a graph about how much they invested 10 or 20 years ago.

1