Read the comment I replied to. It claims the researches must have somehow controlled for correlation (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Which they haven’t. There are a bunch of other comments arguing there’s something beyond correlation shown here. But it hasn’t. The study just demonstrates correlation.
The misunderstanding here is widespread so it worth calling out.
It’s actually kind of funny that people are more sick of the mistake being pointed out over and over than of the mistake being made over and over.
Ok, if we’re going to play this game, what indicates they are making “correlation = causation” errors? What specifically about this study fell for that trap and has not shown something meaningful? You seem very confident they screwed this up, so there must be a reason. And no I’m not digging through your comments to piece together your argument lol I’m sorry but it is ridiculous of you to expect me to comb through your comments and synthesize your point. If your comments were so thorough and proved it then just copy and paste 1 or 2 here that are driving the point home with actual evidence.
The misunderstanding here is widespread so it worth calling out.
It’s actually kind of funny that people are more sick of the mistake being pointed out over and over than of the mistake being made over and over.