When I was in graduate school – correlational research was frowned upon…after all – such research did not predict a direction…it only showed what went together…

My Ph.D. thesis was a correlational study…it showed how a specific behavior correlated with different cognitive aspects of 5-year-olds. I’m sure some profs were unhappy with my decision to look at correlations – but the research was presented at a peer meeting and subsequently published – probably to the chagrin of some who said don’t do this kind of work.

Over the years, I did other kinds of research but my head still loves correlations and so here I am today still thinking correlationallly

Today’s correlational thought is about Iraq…

Has anyone noticed that as we escalated [ Mr. 28 %’s “surge” ] the deaths and violence in Iraq have moved along at a steady pace – i.e. they are correlated…

Yes – it does not say which came first – but is that necessary? to me if two things go together – changing one will change the other- so if we escalate – Iraq violence escalates…If we de-escalate, Iraq violence de-escalates.

Simple? Yes – correlational research is fairly simple – you see that two things go together and you can see how to make them go together in different ways…. Only two variables – so easy – yet so hard for our brilliant Mr. 28% to understand –

At least the profs in grad schools weren’t killing anyone with their lack of liking to look at correlations …Mr. 28% is a killing machine because he refuses to see how things work together – in tandem…or how they correlate…so simple even a simpleton who allegedly went to Business School should be able to see it…