The bad science of Satoshi Kanazawa

Update: Following the publication of this post and all of your thoughtful responses, the Big Think editors have decided to discontinue the Big Think's relationship with Kanazawa.


This is a response to the recent writings of Big Think blogger Satoshi Kanazawa. Not only does Kanazawa baldly assert “correlation certainly does imply causation” – unquestioningly disregarding one of the greatest logical fallacies universally printed in science textbooks, but according to him, “real scientists never utter the phrase”. In this post I’ll explain why Kanazawa is both spectacularly wrong and arrogantly defamatory to scientists who make a valid and extremely important point. I can’t respond to Kanazawa on his own blog because he’s disabled comments, so I’ll debunk him here instead.

Kanazawa’s argument is a classic straw man. Kanazawa’s grand citation for his bizarre claim is a Slate column which in fact demonstrates a perfect case of correlation not implying causation: internet use correlating with depression. The Slate column even sums up with a reminder of why properly understanding the difference between correlation and causation is so important to understand:

“A false positive means approving drugs that have no effect, or imposing regulations that make no difference, or wasting money in schemes to limit unemployment. As science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation—of counterfeit relationships and bogus findings—grow ever larger. The false positive is now more onerous than it's ever been. And all we have to fight it is a catchphrase.”

Kanazawa’s argument however rests on the empty point that the technical definition of the word "imply", in the strictly logical sense that it is intended, is different to the supposed casual usage of the meaning described by Kanazawa as to “suggest”. Kanazawa immediately shatters this argument by stating that “correlation does not prove causation, mostly because there is no proof in science”. This misses the point entirely. The fallacy is not that “correlation does not prove causation” because there is “no proof in science”, the reasoning is that correlation does not imply causation because there are other factors that could be involved.

Kanazawa concludes his case by falling straight in to the trap himself, noting that based on Google book searches:

“Not only are people who say “Correlation does not imply causation” entirely ignorant of science, they… also appear to be very nasty people given to name calling…  The frequency of the phrase “Correlation does not imply causation” in books archived in Google Books has historically increased in tandem with the frequency of epithets like “douchebag” and “numbnuts.”

This is patently a painfully obvious demonstration of correlation not equalling causation. A child taking a cursory glance at Kanazawa’s graph above could tell you that, before laughing in your face. Just for fun I decided to test Kanazawa’s hypothesis myself. I looked at every use of the phrase “correlation does not imply causation” in the top hundred Google book results that I could access. I found many wonderful books by esteemed scientists, not once was the phrase followed or preceded by the words “numbnuts” or “douchebag”. Likewise when I looked at the top books containing the words “numbnuts” or “douchebag”, in no instance were these words used in the context of a debate on causality. I decided to take this a step further, of the 21,300 books containing the phrase “correlation does not imply causation” I found precisely zero books when adding the word “numbnuts” to my search. 

This is a perfect example of illusory correlation and confirmation bias. Kanazawa searched to find a correlation that would support his argument and he found it. He didn’t present any more data for comparison, he didn’t even take the most cursory steps to verify the supposed link.  The phrases “correlation does not imply causation”, “numbnuts” and “douchebag” do indeed all appear in books with increasing frequency over the past hundred years. Crucially though, they do not however appear in the same books, as Kanazawa hypothesised.

At this point, again purely for fun I tossed the above phrases in to Google Correlate, a tool for looking at correlations in search patterns. The phrase “correlation does not imply causation” wasn’t frequently searched for enough for Google to find any correlations, ironically. “Douchebag” however, came up with results including “in a relationship”, “do girls like” and “how can you tell”, again no sign of discussion on causality but evidence of other variables that Kanazawa didn’t even consider might be a part of the equation.

Just to cement the point, I’ll now list some examples here of scientists demonstrating cases where “correlation does not imply causation”:

The rate of fresh lemons imported to the USA from Mexico correlates with a decrease in the US highway fatality rate (Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling).

Coincidentally, the rate of road fatalities in a given country also correlates significantly with the rate of Nobel Laureates (PDF)..

..and incidentally a close correlation has been reported between Nobel Laureates and chocolate consumption (PDF).  It took Oxford University neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishop to adjust the data for the effect of spend per head on education, to demonstrate once again that this is likely a case of correlation not implying causation. She wasn’t the only one, it was also pointed out that chocolate consumption  also correlates with serial killers and rampage killers per capita

The research above wasn’t reported critically everywhere as Kanazawa might have you believe. Outside the small world of science blogging, as Cindy Merrick reported for Stats.com, the newspapers fell for the story hook line and sinker:

“Most coverage (Washington PostHuffington PostNew York Daily NewsUSA Today) seems to have cut-and-pasted from an Associated Press story which, despite a bit of gleeful amusement (ain’t science grand?), swallows Messerli’s article as if auditioning for the gluttonous role of Augustus Gloop in Willy Wonka.”

As Kanazawa should know full well, the fallacy of correlation implying causation is an immense problem in the social sciences, where causation is so difficult to pin down. By now you’ll probably have seen dozens of articles in places such as The Daily Mail churning out the claim that “oral sex helps women fight depression”. The report is based on a 2002 study (that didn’t even look at oral sex) which found that sex without condoms was inversely correlated with depression. The papers parroted the line that semen is an antidepressant with no one in the media considering the patently obvious confounding explanations.

I’ve chosen these examples because they are humorous, but countless recent scientific discussions in which correlation is mistaken for implying causation have had huge impacts such as in the case of vaccine denialism.

I don’t like to introduce ad hom attacks in my critiques but today I’m going to make an exception. The gross errors of reasoning that Kanazawa makes, represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how science works. But this is not Kanazawa's only crime, Kanazawa masquarades hate as science. A whistlestop tour of Kanazawa’s hate fueled nonsense is provided in Jezebel’s account of The Illustrious Career Of A Crap Psychologist, also find debunkings of Kanazawa’s previous works at Science BlogsScientific American and Rational Wiki. I’m frankly embarrassed to be blogging alongside Kanazawa, I think he is singlehandedly dragging the Big Think name through the dirt. If you aren’t aware, Kanazawa was banned for a year from publishing in non peer reviewed journals by his university (LSE) for his blog posts on race. LSE stated that Kanazawa’s “arguments used in the publication were flawed and not supported by evidence”. A group of 68 evolutionary psychologists issued an open letter titled “Kanazawa's bad science does not represent evolutionary psychology”, stating “not only is Kanazawa’s work an example of poor science on theoretical and methodological grounds in our view, but we also believe it violates the central purpose of scientific discourse, because he rarely engages with his scientific critics”. I believe it is outrageous under these circumstances that after being booted from Psychology Today, not only has Kanazawa been allowed (and in my view effectively promoted) to continue on his express train to cloud cuckoo land here at the Big Think but he has even been allowed to silence the tidal wave of criticism by turning off comments on his blog.

I’m not even the first to say this here at the Big Think. Adam Lee previously called for Kanazawa’s departure describing him as a “racist, sexist, genocide-advocating pseudoscientific bigot”. Now we really can well and truly add bad science to the charge sheet. His position has been defended however by the Big Think Editors on the basis that “Satoshi has made us think more than most” and that “he doesn't posture or hedge to insulate himself from attack”. Now that this has clearly been disproven and now that we can’t debunk him (through comments on his blog) without actively promoting him (through blog posts such as this), I think it may be time to reconsider this position.

Image Credit: Shutterstock/Matthew Cole

Related Articles

Why "nuclear pasta" is the strongest material in the universe

Through computationally intensive computer simulations, researchers have discovered that "nuclear pasta," found in the crusts of neutron stars, is the strongest material in the universe.

Accretion disk surrounding a neutron star. Credit: NASA
Surprising Science
  • The strongest material in the universe may be the whimsically named "nuclear pasta."
  • You can find this substance in the crust of neutron stars.
  • This amazing material is super-dense, and is 10 billion times harder to break than steel.

Superman is known as the "Man of Steel" for his strength and indestructibility. But the discovery of a new material that's 10 billion times harder to break than steel begs the question—is it time for a new superhero known as "Nuclear Pasta"? That's the name of the substance that a team of researchers thinks is the strongest known material in the universe.

Unlike humans, when stars reach a certain age, they do not just wither and die, but they explode, collapsing into a mass of neurons. The resulting space entity, known as a neutron star, is incredibly dense. So much so that previous research showed that the surface of a such a star would feature amazingly strong material. The new research, which involved the largest-ever computer simulations of a neutron star's crust, proposes that "nuclear pasta," the material just under the surface, is actually stronger.

The competition between forces from protons and neutrons inside a neutron star create super-dense shapes that look like long cylinders or flat planes, referred to as "spaghetti" and "lasagna," respectively. That's also where we get the overall name of nuclear pasta.

Caplan & Horowitz/arXiv

Diagrams illustrating the different types of so-called nuclear pasta.

The researchers' computer simulations needed 2 million hours of processor time before completion, which would be, according to a press release from McGill University, "the equivalent of 250 years on a laptop with a single good GPU." Fortunately, the researchers had access to a supercomputer, although it still took a couple of years. The scientists' simulations consisted of stretching and deforming the nuclear pasta to see how it behaved and what it would take to break it.

While they were able to discover just how strong nuclear pasta seems to be, no one is holding their breath that we'll be sending out missions to mine this substance any time soon. Instead, the discovery has other significant applications.

One of the study's co-authors, Matthew Caplan, a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University, said the neutron stars would be "a hundred trillion times denser than anything on earth." Understanding what's inside them would be valuable for astronomers because now only the outer layer of such starts can be observed.

"A lot of interesting physics is going on here under extreme conditions and so understanding the physical properties of a neutron star is a way for scientists to test their theories and models," Caplan added. "With this result, many problems need to be revisited. How large a mountain can you build on a neutron star before the crust breaks and it collapses? What will it look like? And most importantly, how can astronomers observe it?"

Another possibility worth studying is that, due to its instability, nuclear pasta might generate gravitational waves. It may be possible to observe them at some point here on Earth by utilizing very sensitive equipment.

The team of scientists also included A. S. Schneider from California Institute of Technology and C. J. Horowitz from Indiana University.

Check out the study "The elasticity of nuclear pasta," published in Physical Review Letters.


How a huge, underwater wall could save melting Antarctic glaciers

Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.

Image: NASA
Surprising Science
  • Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
  • Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
  • The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.

The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.

To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.

In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.

An "unthinkable" engineering project

"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.

One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.

The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.

Source: Wolovick et al.

An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.

But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.

Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.

"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.

"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."

A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.

"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."

Why the worst part about climate change isn't rising temperatures

The world's getting hotter, and it's getting more volatile. We need to start thinking about how climate change encourages conflict.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Climate change is usually discussed in terms of how it impacts the weather, but this fails to emphasize how climate change is a "threat multiplier."
  • As a threat multiplier, climate change makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse.
  • Not only do we have to work to minimize the impact of climate change on our environment, but we also have to deal with how it affects human issues today.

Human beings are great at responding to imminent and visible threats. Climate change, while dire, is almost entirely the opposite: it's slow, it's pervasive, it's vague, and it's invisible. Researchers and policymakers have been trying to package climate change in a way that conveys its severity. Usually, they do so by talking about its immediate effects: rising temperature, rising sea levels, and increasingly dangerous weather.

These things are bad, make no mistake about it. But the thing that makes climate change truly dire isn't that Cape Cod will be underwater next century, that polar bears will go extinct, or that we'll have to invent new categories for future hurricanes. It's the thousands of ancillary effects — the indirect pressure that climate change puts on every person on the planet.

How a drought in the Middle East contributed to extremism in Europe

(DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Nigel Farage in front of a billboard that leverages the immigration crisis to support Brexit.

Because climate change is too big for the mind to grasp, we'll have to use a case study to talk about this. The Syrian civil war is a horrific tangle of senseless violence, but there are some primary causes we can point to. There is the longstanding conflicts between different religious sects in that country. Additionally, the Arab Spring swept Syria up in a wave of resistance against authoritarian leaders in the Middle East — unfortunately, Syrian protests were brutally squashed by Bashar Al-Assad. These, and many other factors, contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war.

One of these other factors was drought. In fact, the drought in that region — it started in 2006 — has been described as the "worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilization began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago." Because of this drought, many rural Syrians could no longer support themselves. Between 2006 and 2009, an estimated 1.5 million Syrians — many of them agricultural workers and farmers — moved into the country's major cities. With this sudden mixing of different social groups in a country where classes and religious sects were already at odds with one another, tensions rose, and the increased economic instability encouraged chaos. Again, the drought didn't cause the civil war — but it sure as hell helped it along.

The ensuing flood of refugees to Europe is already a well-known story. The immigration crisis was used as a talking point in the Brexit movement to encourage Britain to leave the EU. Authoritarian or extreme-right governments and political parties have sprung up in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and other European countries, all of which have capitalized on fears of the immigration crisis.

Why climate change is a "threat multiplier"

This is why both NATO and the Pentagon have labeled climate change as a "threat multiplier." On its own, climate change doesn't cause these issues — rather, it exacerbates underlying problems in societies around the world. Think of having a heated discussion inside a slowly heating-up car.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of its domino effect: for example, higher temperatures around the world melt the icecaps, releasing methane stored in the polar ice that contributes to the rise in temperature, which both reduces available land for agriculture due to drought and makes parts of the ocean uninhabitable for different animal species, wreaking havoc on the food chain, and ultimately making food more scarce.

Maybe we should start to consider climate change's domino effect in more human and political terms. That is, in terms of the dominoes of sociopolitical events spurred on by climate change and the missing resources it gobbles up.

What the future may hold

(NASA via Getty Images)

Increasingly severe weather events will make it more difficult for nations to avoid conflict.

Part of why this is difficult to see is because climate change does not affect all countries proportionally — at least, not in a direct sense. Germanwatch, a German NGO, releases a climate change index every year to analyze exactly how badly different countries have been affected by climate change. The top five most at-risk countries are Haiti, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Notice that many of these places are islands, which are at the greatest risk for major storms and rising sea levels. Some island nations are even expected to literally disappear — the leaders of these nations are actively making plans to move their citizens to other countries.

But Germanwatch's climate change index is based on weather events. It does not account for the political and social instability that will likely result. The U.S. and many parts of Europe are relatively low on the index, but that is precisely why these countries will most likely need to deal with the human cost of climate change. Refugees won't go from the frying pan into the fire: they'll go to the closest, safest place available.

Many people's instinctive response to floods of immigrants is to simply make borders more restrictive. This makes sense — a nation's first duty is to its own citizens, after all. Unfortunately, people who support stronger immigration policies tend to have right-wing authoritarian tendencies. This isn't always the case, of course, but anecdotally, we can look at the governments in Europe that have stricter immigration policies. Hungary, for example, has extremely strict policies against Muslim immigrants. It's also rapidly turning into a dictatorship. The country has cracked down on media organizations and NGOs, eroded its judicial system's independence, illegalized homelessness, and banned gender studies courses.

Climate change and its sociopolitical effects, such as refugee migration, aren't some poorer country's problem. It's everyone's problem. Whether it's our food, our homes, or our rights, climate change will exact a toll on every nation on Earth. Stopping climate change, or at least reducing its impact, is vitally important. Equally important is contending with the multifaceted threats its going to throw our way.