I don’t act this way because I’m a messenger. I’m a messenger because I act this way. Correlation YES. Causation NO. I was an autistic alcoholic artistic cyclist before I was a messenger. Now the same holds true and I’m a messenger but you cannot look at me and generalize about messengers as a group. And you cannot look at messengers as a group and figure me out. You can get pretty close. You can get close enough for government work. You can make your dart stick to the board if you throw it hard enough, but you won’t hit the bull’s-eye with that technique. Close enough may be good enough to get the job done. For all intents and purposes, you know what you need to know. Good enough. Extrapolate. Interpolate. Infer Classify. Label. Pigeon-hole. Stereotype. Predict. Connect. Lump. Group.
I’m a messenger because I ride a bike. I don’t ride a bike because I’m a messenger.
Once again correlation is strong but don’t go reaching for causation.
Do I drink a lot of beer because I’m a messenger…NO. Am I a messenger because I drink a lot of beer…NO, it’s not that either. There is so much correlation here, you can almost taste the causation, but it’s not valid. It would be so easy. It’s so obvious. It’s in your face, but it’s not a causal relationship.
You want some causation, here, here you go: I smell this way because I’m a messenger. My bike is trashed because I’m a messenger. My clothes wear out in certain key areas because I’m a messenger. My right shoulder is lower than my left, because I’m a messenger. I ride in traffic like a messenger because I am a messenger. There you go, there it is, straight up, direct results, causation.
If A then B.
One of these kids is not like the others, one of these kids is doing his own thing...
But it all depends on what you're looking at. The shoes, the beer, the single malt scotch, the clothes, the hair, the glasses, the smokes...what are you looking at?
Add Comment