You all know that there
is a big difference between an association, or correlation, and a case of cause
and effect. The more televisions you own, the more likely you are to die early
of heart disease. Could it be the light emission from the TV, or even something
deadly from the weather report? Of course not. The more TVs you have, the more time
you are likely to watch telly, the less likely you are to be out walking the
dog, and you can complete the explanation yourself quite easily.
Last year there was a
report in the New England Journalof Medicine demonstrating that there was a direct link between the national
chocolate consumption and the number of Nobel laureates from that country. It
was speculated that all those flavanols in the cocoa were a boost to thinking
and chocolate consumption should be widely promoted for a higher national IQ.
The media, not being a
discerning beast, didn’t read the article properly. If they had they would have
twigged that it was written tongue in cheek. Instead, it was reported as a
cause and effect and not just an association.
An article published last
month in the Journal of Nutrition pointed out the folly of choosing a single correlation to make an assumption.
Tea and wine also contain the antioxidant flavanols, yet there is no such
association between consumption and brain power for these two popular
beverages.
On the other hand, there
is a very strong link between the number of Noble laureates and the number of
IKEA stores in that country.
And that, surely, is
proof why you need to throw out that old sofa and head down to IKEA. Today. You
will think so much clearly.
No comments:
Post a Comment