top | item 23936272

(no title)

mirimir | 5 years ago

Yes, correlation <> causality.

discuss

order

anbende|5 years ago

In general, you're right of course.

The article in question used a lagged design, using temporally prior markers to predict later change. This is not fully causal, but it's not fully correlative either. In the field, it's consider to provide preliminary causal evidence. Still needs additional research to be sure.

JamesBarney|5 years ago

It's better than straight correlation, but given the historical track records of these studies turning into a reproducible intervention of clinical significance I'd say the chances are low. The article event mentions this with

> Unlike in previous research, Zainal and Newman did not find that self-mastery, or feeling in control of one’s fate, had an effect on the mental health of participants across the 18-year period.

dorgo|5 years ago

But we are talking about psychology. I mean, I can improve my mood by smiling.

mirimir|5 years ago

Sure. But in my experience, what works better is remembering happy times. Or rather, represencing happy states.

And once I'm being happy and optimistic, it's natural to persevere and accomplish stuff more effectively, and I have desired results. That is, "be -> do -> have". Which is just the opposite of the western cultural default of "have -> do -> be". As in: "If I were wealthy, I could do all this fun stuff, and then I'd be happy."