My Ph.D. thesis was a correlational study...it showed how a specific behavior correlated with different cognitive aspects of 5-year-olds. I'm sure some profs were unhappy with my decision to look at correlations - but the research was presented at a peer meeting and subsequently published - probably to the chagrin of some who said don't do this kind of work.
Over the years, I did other kinds of research but my head still loves correlations and so here I am today still thinking correlationallly
Today's correlational thought is about Iraq...
Has anyone noticed that as we escalated [ Mr. 28 %'s "surge" ] the deaths and violence in Iraq have moved along at a steady pace - i.e. they are correlated...
Yes - it does not say which came first - but is that necessary? to me if two things go together - changing one will change the other- so if we escalate - Iraq violence escalates...If we de-escalate, Iraq violence de-escalates.
Simple? Yes - correlational research is fairly simple - you see that two things go together and you can see how to make them go together in different ways.... Only two variables - so easy - yet so hard for our brilliant Mr. 28% to understand -
At least the profs in grad schools weren't killing anyone with their lack of liking to look at correlations ...Mr. 28% is a killing machine because he refuses to see how things work together - in tandem...or how they correlate...so simple even a simpleton who allegedly went to Business School should be able to see it...
