# Reverse Causation

I'm wondering whether red dots in the example scatterplot shown in the attached graphic can be used as an argument against reverse causation.

If the main effect was $Y \to X$, then we would assume that for high values of $Y$, we also get high values of $X$. However, $X$ appears to be assigned independently from $Y$, while $Y$ is not assigned independently from $X$.

Is the argument valid? If yes - how strong is it and can it be quantified? Is there literature on this?

• Why would you say that X "appears" to be assigned independently from Y and not vice versa? To me both directions provide equal amounts of information. – Pieter Feb 27 '18 at 8:57