Vitamins Cause Crimes

There are several differences between correlation and causation. Correlation is if an event happens and is not related to another event and it is a coincidence. This would be if an event happened but it was not connected to another. An example of this would be catching a foul ball at a baseball game. It would be a correlation because you just happened to be in that place where the ball was hit and were able to catch it. Causation on the other hand is a cause and effect. One thing happens because another thing previously happened. An example of this would be if a person drank caffeine late at night, then they would be up all night. Another example of this would be if someone slipped on ice coming out of class.

According to Raine, there are documented biological factors associated with violent behavior, however, “biology is not destiny, and it’s more than biology” (Gross, 2013). One area of increasing scientific research is focused on the role of environmental factors. An interesting connection between behavior and environmental toxins is the possible link between lead exposure in children and later violent crime. Raine hypothesizes that environmental lead exposure of young children in the 50s, 60s and 70s corresponds to a later rise in violence in the 70s, 80s and 90s; a similar correlative decrease in both environmental lead and later violence suggests a causal relationship (Gross,

Correlation is usually when two things tend to happen together at the same time and causation is something happens because of something else. I think it is harder to prove causation because

Researchers have studied the correlation between birth defects and tobacco. Correlation is not about cause and effect but rather how a relationship between two variables works

Correlation means a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things, and it's different from causation, because that means the effect after an action. For example, in my life the correlation being a parent and their child and the causation could be a child getting an F for not studying. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study is an overall study of the parents and students. They test their skills in academics then do a survey to better understand the thought process of each one and where it came from. The purpose was to see their correlation and causation. If they went hand-in-hand or not, another example, "A child whose parents are highly educated typically does well in school; not much surprise there" (199). What the parent does for their child is more helpful than what a parent is. With the support it all fits in and helps the child in its academic performance. I however, think it can go both ways; a parent can help and be it to be beneficial. It all depends on the child at the time and what its capabilities are, not their

There seems to be a general tendency to attribute causation with correlation. People often conclude that causation exist when the association between variables is seemingly obvious but this is a common mistakes that people makes. It is important to note that correlation does not prove causation. Correlation just simply implies that a relationship between variables exists and that there is a possibility of a cause and effect relationship; however, it does not prove causation actually exist. Correlation do not indicate in which direction the relationship works such as Variable A could cause Variable B, or vice versa, or may a third (or fourth, or even fifth) variable may be the cause of both of the other related variables.

I believe it’s a correlation because of the relationship between the annual number of executions and the murder rate. I didn't think it was causation because causation is the action of causing something. Last semester, I had Statistics and I saw this study that when ice cream sales rise, so do homicides. That just proves that there’s a correlation, but it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a causation. That applies to the Execution and the Murder

In chapter 4 the chapter considers a variety of possible explanations for the significant drop in crime and crime rates that occurred in the 1990s. Based on articles that appeared in the country’s largest newspapers, the authors compile a list of the leading, commonly offered explanations. The next step is to systematically examine each explanation and consider whether available data support the explanation. What the authors, in fact, demonstrate is that in all but three cases–increased reliance on prisons, increased number of police, and changes in illegal drug markets–correlation was erroneously interpreted as causation and in some cases, the correlation wasn’t even that strong.

1. The theories and perspectives in this unit focus on the environmental and social influence of crime. Do you think that environmental and social conditions influence crime? Why or why not? Between biological, psychological, and social factors, which one do you think plays the biggest role in crime? Why?

The title, Vitamins Cause Crime, falls under the Correlation Vs. Causation Fallacy. The Correlation Vs. Causation Fallacy is defined as making an assumption because one variable is associated with another. Take for example, both variables A, and B. A may cause B, and B may cause A. However, there is another variable that may cause both A and/or B – it is C. In the case of the newspaper’s article, vitamins may not cause crime rates, rather an option such as a particular mental health problem requires use of certain vitamins, but because of this mental health problem, these types of individuals have a higher risk of committing a crime. Additionally, its even possible vitamins have no association with

There is a study devoted to finding the causes of crime and what makes people criminals. This study is appropriately

This states that 18.1% of the variation in crime rate is explained by regression of education on crime. Since this value is not close to 1, it doesn’t seem to be a appropriate predictor to determine the crime rate in USA.

The search for causes of crime forms the basis of most criminological studies. There are numerous explanations for crime: psychological, evolutionary, genetical,

Research shows that there is a correlation that shows the relationshop between the IQ and the grade point average of students. It was found that the correlation is strong at a .75 because it’s a direct relationship. For instance when someone has a higher IQ they are more likely going to have a higher GPA. However although the correlation shows a higher IQ means higher GPA does not mean that is the only reason the GPA is rising, it could be because they hired a tutor, have been studying more or are maybe just in more interesting classes. In correlation studies they show that there is a relationship between two different variables however it is not evidence or proof in any way. The reason it isn’t proof is because it has not been proven that they are directly the reason for the relationship however that they do have common results. Some of the reasons correlation cannot prove anything is because of the limitations; these would be the lack of information about the correlation, sample size or the standard deviation. In our text it states “If the word correlation is broken down co-relation it is expresses what is meant: The characteristics are related and the evidence for the relationship is that they vary together, or co-vary. As the level of one variable changes, the other changes in concert, this happens because both variables contain some of the same information. The higher the correlation the more they may have in common” (Tanner,2011).

Many theories of crime are macro theories, which are used to explain crime based on a large group of people or society. While macro theories are the predominant type of theory used to explain crime, there are also a variety of “individual”, or micro, factors which are equally important. Two such individual factors s are maternal cigarette smoking (MCS) and cognitive ability, or Intelligence Quotient (IQ).