•Practical Implication for Correlation (Lay individual vs Scholarly Group)
Can you please explain or provide resources that explain this issue (esp. to a lay audience):
How to understand the significance of a co-relation number that studies (esp. meta-analyses) produce. The difficulty is from moving from the number to the practical implication of the number (what does it mean for the reader?)
The contrast is between an implications for a lay individual vs group/academic research purposes.
Please note that while comments about the following example are appreciated, the main purpose of the post is to be able to deal with correlations in general not the specifics of the example
Example:, the correlation between general mental ability (GMA) and job performance is .5.
See the difficulty of interpreting that number here
When a lay person sees the number .5, how can they better understand it? Is that high, low, moderate etc?? For me as an individual, is it worth considerable time and effort to raise my GMA? If I'm an employer, do I eliminate a candidate because of a low GMA ? Do I specify from the beginning that my applicant pool will be from a certain GMA etc..? How much important is GMA (.5) in comparison to a correlation of .4 or .2? If a correlation is .1, should I ignore it?
Answers/resources up to now:
1- Against Individual IQ worriers (Scott Alexander)
2- A video explaining the concept "Co-relation does not equal causation"
I explain more about what I mean by "resources" and "demonstrations" here
3- The original discussion can be found here
I might add your answer. If you do not wish to be quoted, please let me know. View the question