Timeline for Causal Inference - when Conditioning on a Collider is correct
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2023 at 14:33 | comment | added | clementzach | I re-read your question and realized that I misunderstood it the first time I answered. In this case, you don't want the door you open to correctly estimate the number of cars behind doors; you want the door you open to be most likely to contain a car. | |
| Jan 15, 2023 at 14:28 | history | edited | clementzach | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I misunderstood the question the first time I wrote it.
|
| Jan 15, 2023 at 13:27 | comment | added | Mark Z. | Appreciate your response.. Point 2 was actually clear to me already, as basically you can make other adjustments to compensate for that action (conditioning on a collider), but in this case there are no other adjustments one can make and yet we arrive at the correct solution - so how does one differentiate whether your results are still correct (or not) after doing so for Point 1? Just because there is no other choice than to condition on the collider does not make it the right thing to do - is this then just a situational decision point, or what are ways to validate? | |
| Jan 15, 2023 at 13:11 | history | answered | clementzach | CC BY-SA 4.0 |