A friend of mine likes to use the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation." Since I have heard the phrase from him on several occasions I have become rather fond of it as well. It is accurate, and true. How often do you hear incidents being blamed upon something and it appears as though the verdict is in, and no further investigations occur?

This I believe likely stems from our human nature to prefer to always take the easy path. It is easier to blame the first factor that MIGHT have been the cause than it is to continue to look. In many case we may feel comfortable with blaming that thing, or it may fit nicely into our own personal agendas. That does not mean the thing being pointed out is the actual culprit. It very well may be ONE of the factors in a multi-factor environment, or it may not have anything to do with the actual problem other than the fact it was present.

Why would I bother to write an article like this? It is an article largely stating the obvious. Yet as with anything obvious it can become so common that we no longer pay attention to it. You can become accustomed to a sound, an odor, etc in and environment and after enough exposure to it you forget it is even there. Could we do the same with mental, reasonable, logical, and rational concepts? It is common sense so we eventually ignore it.

I believe understanding that correlation does not equal causation is a very important thing to remember. It is not something we should allow to simply become background noise. There is a danger implicit in allowing this concept to be deemed as HO HUM, or unimportant.

Scapegoat

Going for the simple answer and a willingness to embrace the easy path so that we may carry on with our other activities with as limited interruption as possible makes us an easy target for manipulation. How willing will we be to accept a culprit when it is offered to us if it enables us to move on with other activities and cease thought on a subject? Even more likely, is a case where the culprit fits a bias we have already formed. If we dislike something then blaming an event upon that something is even more likely to be accepted by us. We may not even be aware that the thing being blamed was simply a scapegoat and was not the cause at all.

I know I have fallen victim to this form of manipulation more than once. I've seen it at a small local level, and it happens often from within the machinations of the higher levels of governance.

If I give into this simple answer without permitting consideration of other possibilities, or perhaps without even bothering to look at other possibilities is that my problem? If it turns out the answer was wrong and that correlation did not equal causation, is that my fault? In this day and age most people will say it is not their fault. They will say they were lied to. Whomever, and whatever sources they got the incorrect information from are where they will cast the blame. It could be worse than that. They could even protect that source and cast the blame elsewhere with the fire of correlation not equaling causation spreading, growing, and consuming more in it's path.

The truth of the matter is IT is our responsibility. You are responsible for your choices. All we can really do is learn from our mistakes. We can start trying to setup mental cues for ourselves and teach ourselves to recognize situations where this psychological tendency may be exploited. If we are aware, and we are responsible enough to put forth a little effort rather than accept the easiest narrative then we can consider other possibilities. That does not mean our findings will differ. Many times the explanation will be accurate. Yet it is not ALWAYS. Just because something most of the time is TRUE does not make it ALWAYS true. This is a generalization and is a logical fallacy.

Looking for scapegoats is a bad thing. If it is our responsibility then we need to own up to it. The problem is not resolved and things are not all better by shifting the blame.

Sometimes this is intentionally used to manipulate people towards a specific agenda, or to strengthen a specific attitude or bias. This will be used against you, on you, and if you are not careful by you. This scapegoating is an aspect of human nature I'd love to see cleanly removed from the existence of our minds. I prefer the truth, no matter how painful it may be.

Missing the Cause

In more cases than scapegoating it is a case of just picking a cause. The presence of something was the reason that was labeled the cause. In many cases there could have been a completely different cause. We would not have seen that other cause, due to already SETTLING for the easy cause we accepted due to detecting the presence of something. In other situations the cause is actually likely a combination of multiple factors.

Whether the other factors get mentioned or not often depends upon how personally, or politically painful such an announcement would be. Sometimes the other factors are known, and simply are not mentioned due to the blow back that such a revelation might cause. So instead of presenting the truth, only the factors that are comfortable and that accept the desired narrative are shared with the public.

Conclusion

I consider myself a "truther" which is usually derogatory and applied to 9-11 truthers. I did not write this article with 9-11 or any particular agenda in mind. In fact, what I wrote before this could apply to a great many things and does not have anything to do with conspiracy theories. It is me simply writing about human nature.

I am a truther. I want the truth no matter how uncomfortable it may make me feel. I want the truth even when it goes against my personal beliefs or preconceived notions. To me that is what being a truther means. It does not mean I am an anti-vaxxer, 911-truther, anti-climate change, or "pick your conspiracy label" person. It simply means I want to know the truth. Choosing to shove me in a box and label me as black or white is simply a person giving into the easy path and attempting to make me fit their preconceived agenda. It has nothing to do with the quest for truth. Tossing labels, name calling, and attacking are your mental defenses kicking in and lashing out at things that may cause you discomfort or if they had some truth might shift your world view. This is usually a scary thing so we fight against it. In fact, some of our beliefs are so strong that we will deny literally any information to the contrary unless it literally smacks us in the face.

I chose awhile back to stop being like this. My concept of truth is fluid. It is dynamic. It is not static, or set in stone. It took some doing but I conditioned myself to be okay with being WRONG. That was one of the first steps. To realize that being wrong is okay, and normal. When I am wrong, I change. It is not always easy, but I try.

As to the BLACK and WHITE, US vs THEM, HOME vs ENEMY, VAXXER vs ANTI-VAXXER, PATRIOT vs CONSPIRACY THEORIST, etc. I don't view things in black and white. In fact, I see the tendency of people to pick TEAMS as being used to manipulate us frequently. I am not an Anti-Vaxxer for example. I see the value of vaccines. I am against the ease at which vaccines are produced with far less regulatory oversight than many others. I am also not a believer that COLLATERAL DAMAGE is acceptable. It should be accidental. If you know there are going to be problems from something and you have not fixed those problems then forcing them upon anyone is going with the idea that COLLATERAL DAMAGE is okay. You break a few eggs to make an omelet. I do not accept that idea. I view it as wrong and inherently evil. Collateral damage should be accidental, not intentional. When it occurs steps should be made that prevent that accident from happening again if possible. We hear the term collateral damage most often used when talking of taking out a target and knowing that there are likely an unknown quantity of innocents within the target area. This to me is unacceptable. Yet, it has become the norm. I'd rather they take out a contract and hire an assassin for their target with a contract specifying no collateral damage is acceptable. Which is worse, hiring the assassin to kill the one target you want killed because you think assassination is a bad thing, or dropping a bomb on the target and killing a lot of innocents in the process. In my mind, the math is easy on that.

Anyway... I got side tracked. I believe you get the gist of this post. Thank you for reading.

Steem on!
(Images by me - may not be relevant - but I had fun making them)