BPadvertisementfrom

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 3 August 2012

Correlation, Causation and Personality

Posted on 18:37 by Unknown
A new paper from my collaborator James Lee. Ungated copy here, including commentary from other researchers including Judea Pearl.
Correlation and Causation in the Study of Personality 
Abstract: Personality psychology aims to explain the causes and the consequences of variation in behavioural traits. Because of the observational nature of the pertinent data, this endeavour has provoked many controversies. In recent years, the computer scientist Judea Pearl has used a graphical approach to extend the innovations in causal inference developed by Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright. Besides shedding much light on the philosophical notion of causality itself, this graphical framework now contains many powerful concepts of relevance to the controversies just mentioned. In this article, some of these concepts are applied to areas of personality research where questions of causation arise, including the analysis of observational data and the genetic sources of individual differences.
From the conclusions:
... This article is in part an effort to unify the contributions of three innovators in causal reasoning: Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, and Judea Pearl 
Fisher began his career at a time when the distinction between correlation and causation was poorly understood and indeed scorned by leading intellectuals. Nevertheless, he persisted in valuing this distinction. This led to his insight that randomization of the putative cause—whether by the deliberate introduction of ‘error’, as his biologist colleagues thought of it, or ‘beautifully . . . by the meiotic process’—in fact reveals more than it obscures. His subsequent introduction of the average excess and average effect is perhaps the first explicit use of the distinction between correlation and causation in any formal scientific theory. 
Structural equation modelers will know Wright—Fisher’s great rival in population genetics—as the ingenious inventor of path analysis. Wright’s diagrammatic approach to cause and effect serves as a conceptual bridge toward Pearl’s graphical formalization, which has greatly extended the innovations developed by both of the population-genetic pioneers. 
The fruitfulness of Pearl’s graphical framework when applied to the problems discussed in this article bear out its utility to personality psychology. Perhaps the most surprising instance of the theory’s fruitfulness concerns the role of colliders. Although obscure before Pearl’s seminal work, this role turns out to be obvious in retrospect and a great aid to the understanding of covariate choice, assortative mating, selection bias, and a myriad of other seemingly unrelated problems. This article has surely only scratched the surface of the ramifications following from our recognition of colliders.  
Conspicuous from these accolades by his absence is Charles Spearman—the inventor of factor analysis and thereby a founder of personality psychology. Spearman (1927) did conceive of his g factor as a hidden causal force. However, new and brilliant ideas are often only partially understood, even by their authors. After a century of theoret- ical scrutiny and empirical applications, common factors appear to be more plausibly defended as mild formalizations of folk-psychological terms than as causal forces uncovered by matrix algebra. I have thus advocated a sharp distinction between the measurement of personality traits (factor analysis) and the study of their causal relations (graphical SEM).  
... The puzzle is that by using common factors in our causal explanations, we seem to be retreating from this reductionistic approach. A single node called g sending an arrow to a single node called liberalism is surely an approximation to the true and extraordinarily more complicated graph entangling the various physical mechanisms that underlie mental characteristics. Why this compromise? Is it sensible to test models of ethereal emergent properties shoving and being shoved by corporeal bits of matter—or, perhaps even worse, by other emergent properties? If we are committing to a calculus of causation, should we not also discard the convenient fictions of folk psychology? 
The answer to this puzzle may be that reductionistic decomposition is not always the royal road to scientific understanding. ... [[In physics we refer to "effective descriptions" or "effective degrees of freedom" appropriate to a particular scale of dynamics or organization -- no need to invoke quarks to explain the mechanics of a baseball.]]
From the author's response to commentary:
... It was the genius of Darwin to realize the power of explanation (4): phenotypes and environments cohere in such an uncanny way because nature is a statistician who has allowed only a subset of the logically possible combinations to persist over time. 
Although phenotypes are what nature selects, it cannot be phenotypes alone that preserve the record of natural selection. Phenotypes typically lack the property that variations in them are replicated with high fidelity across an indefinite number of generations. DNA, however, does have this property— hence the memorable phrase “the immortal replicator” (Dawkins, 1976). If DNA is furthermore causally efficacious, such that the possession of one variant rather than another has phenotypic consequences that are reasonably robust, then we have the potential for natural selection to bring about a lasting correlation between environmental demands and the causes of adaptation to those very same demands. 
When statistically controlling fitness, nature does not actually use the [causal] average effect of any allele. If an allele has a positive average excess in [is correlated with] fitness, for any reason whatsoever, it will tend to displace its alternatives. Nevertheless, it seems to be the case that nature correctly picks out alleles for their effects often enough; the results are evident in the living world all around us. Davey Smith and I are confident that where nature has succeeded, patient and ingenious human scientists will be able to follow.
For more on Judea Pearl's work, see the earlier post: Beyond Bayes: causality vs correlation.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in cognitive science, psychology, psychometrics | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • PhD Comics: the movie
    PHD Movie Trailer from PHD Comics on Vimeo . I met Jorge Cham , the cartoonist who draws PhD Comics, a few years ago at Sci Foo. Cham was ...
  • Finding the Next Einstein
    Duke researcher Jonathan Wai interviewed me for his Psychology Today blog, Finding the Next Einstein . Below are my answers to two of his q...
  • Beanbags and causal variants
    Not only do these results implicate common causal variants as the source of heritability in disease susceptibility, but they also suggest th...
  • Sitzfleisch
    Freeman Dyson reviews the new biography of Oppenheimer by Ray Monk. I discussed the book already here . NYBooks : ... The subtitle, “A Life ...
  • A blog is born
    Raghu Parasarathy , a biophysicist at U Oregon, and my correspondent in this previous post on faculty blogging, has decided to try it out. ...
  • News from Microsoft Research Faculty Summit 2013
    Measuring the maximal commuting subset of observables uniquely determines the pure state of a quantum system (recently proved Kadison-Singer...
  • Talk cancelled
    This talk has been cancelled, for complex reasons that I will not discuss.
  • East Asian sociopaths?
    Some would assert that CEOs and other people in leadership positions are often warm sociopaths . Interestingly, it is claimed that there is ...
  • Swedish height in the 20th century
    Average height of Swedish military conscripts during the 20th century. Looks like an increase of roughly 1 cm per decade or about 1.5 SD in ...
  • The differences are enormous
    Luis Alvarez laid it out bluntly: The world of mathematics and theoretical physics is hierarchical. That was my first exposure to it. There...

Categories

  • ability (2)
  • academia (9)
  • affirmative action (8)
  • ai (13)
  • aig (1)
  • alan turing (3)
  • algorithms (2)
  • alpha (2)
  • american society (54)
  • art (3)
  • ashkenazim (1)
  • aspergers (4)
  • athletics (6)
  • autism (4)
  • autobiographical (13)
  • basketball (4)
  • bayes (1)
  • behavioral economics (4)
  • berkeley (5)
  • bgi (24)
  • biology (23)
  • biotech (6)
  • bjj (5)
  • black holes (4)
  • blade runner (2)
  • blogging (3)
  • books (5)
  • borges (2)
  • bounded rationality (10)
  • brainpower (57)
  • bubbles (3)
  • caltech (14)
  • cambridge uk (1)
  • careers (18)
  • charles darwin (1)
  • chet baker (2)
  • China (25)
  • christmas (1)
  • class (2)
  • cognitive science (35)
  • cold war (1)
  • complexity (1)
  • computing (9)
  • conferences (4)
  • cosmology (4)
  • creativity (3)
  • credit crisis (10)
  • crossfit (5)
  • cryptography (2)
  • data mining (4)
  • dating (2)
  • demographics (1)
  • derivatives (5)
  • determinism (1)
  • digital books (1)
  • dna (4)
  • economic history (5)
  • economics (38)
  • econtalk (2)
  • ecosystems (1)
  • education (5)
  • efficient markets (8)
  • Einstein (2)
  • elitism (14)
  • encryption (1)
  • energy (1)
  • entrepreneurs (3)
  • entropy (1)
  • environmentalism (1)
  • eugene (3)
  • evolution (19)
  • expert prediction (6)
  • fake alpha (2)
  • feminism (2)
  • Fermi problems (2)
  • feynman (7)
  • film (9)
  • finance (42)
  • fitness (3)
  • flynn effect (1)
  • foo camp (1)
  • football (5)
  • france (1)
  • free will (1)
  • freeman dyson (2)
  • fx (2)
  • game theory (1)
  • geeks (2)
  • gender (4)
  • genetic engineering (15)
  • genetics (79)
  • genius (24)
  • genomics (2)
  • geopolitics (7)
  • gilded age (13)
  • global warming (1)
  • globalization (23)
  • godel (2)
  • goldman sachs (2)
  • google (4)
  • happiness (2)
  • harvard (8)
  • harvard society of fellows (5)
  • hedge funds (4)
  • hedonic treadmill (1)
  • height (2)
  • higher education (38)
  • history (8)
  • history of science (12)
  • hormones (3)
  • hugh everett (2)
  • human capital (34)
  • humor (1)
  • income inequality (21)
  • india (2)
  • industrial revolution (1)
  • innovation (38)
  • intellectual history (10)
  • intellectual property (1)
  • intellectual ventures (1)
  • internet (4)
  • iq (16)
  • italy (4)
  • james salter (3)
  • japan (4)
  • jiujitsu (8)
  • keynes (1)
  • kids (13)
  • lewontin fallacy (1)
  • lhc (1)
  • literature (12)
  • luck (1)
  • machine learning (8)
  • malcolm gladwell (1)
  • manhattan (2)
  • many worlds (10)
  • mathematics (14)
  • meritocracy (7)
  • microsoft (2)
  • mma (10)
  • monsters (2)
  • moore's law (1)
  • movies (9)
  • MSU (18)
  • music (5)
  • mutants (2)
  • nathan myhrvold (1)
  • neal stephenson (1)
  • neanderthals (2)
  • nerds (3)
  • net worth (5)
  • neuroscience (7)
  • new yorker (1)
  • nicholas metropolis (1)
  • noam chomsky (2)
  • nobel prize (2)
  • nsa (2)
  • nuclear weapons (5)
  • obama (7)
  • olympics (4)
  • oppenheimer (7)
  • patents (1)
  • personality (9)
  • philip k. dick (1)
  • philosophy of mind (2)
  • photos (40)
  • physical training (13)
  • physics (73)
  • podcasts (10)
  • political correctness (6)
  • politics (4)
  • pop culture (2)
  • prisoner's dilemma (1)
  • privacy (2)
  • probability (5)
  • prostitution (2)
  • psychology (25)
  • psychometrics (31)
  • qcd (1)
  • quants (9)
  • quantum computers (2)
  • quantum field theory (3)
  • quantum mechanics (18)
  • race relations (10)
  • real estate (1)
  • realpolitik (6)
  • renaissance technologies (1)
  • research (3)
  • russia (2)
  • sad but true (2)
  • sci fi (8)
  • science (42)
  • sec (1)
  • security (5)
  • silicon valley (6)
  • singularity (1)
  • smpy (1)
  • social networks (2)
  • social science (12)
  • software development (2)
  • solar energy (1)
  • sports (13)
  • startups (19)
  • statistics (16)
  • success (2)
  • taiwan (1)
  • talks (16)
  • teaching (2)
  • technology (34)
  • television (2)
  • travel (24)
  • turing test (1)
  • ufc (8)
  • ultimate fighting (1)
  • universities (33)
  • university of oregon (6)
  • usain bolt (2)
  • venture capital (3)
  • volatility (1)
  • von Neumann (10)
  • wall street (2)
  • war (1)
  • warren buffet (1)
  • wwii (3)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (134)
    • ►  August (10)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (21)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ▼  2012 (222)
    • ►  December (17)
    • ►  November (19)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ▼  August (19)
      • Genomic secrets of the dead: high-coverage Denisov...
      • Back in the MACT
      • Beating down hash functions
      • deCODE, de novo mutations, and autism risk
      • Genomic prediction: no bull
      • Recent human evolution: European height
      • "For the historians and the ladies"
      • Better to be lucky than good
      • Knightmare
      • Chomsky on po-mo
      • On doping
      • Gell-Mann, Feynman, Everett
      • The greatest of all time
      • The path not taken
      • Quantum correspondence
      • Curiosity has landed
      • Bolt, again!
      • Correlation, Causation and Personality
      • $440M in 45 minutes
    • ►  July (18)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (16)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2011 (144)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (16)
    • ►  October (25)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (13)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile