Why it is difficult for researchers to isolate specific causes of child behaviour - using two of your own examples. How is the term “correlation” a solution to this problem?
It is difficult for researchers to isolate specific causes of child behaviour because each child’s environmental settings and values are different from one to another.
Most scientists agree that genes have some influence over general intelligence and special aptitudes in such activities as athletics, mathematics, music, and science. But genes are not the only factor involved in producing these characteristics.
In some cases, the child may inherit some genes, which would enable him/her, to become a very good dancer, pianist, painter, etc., but if the child is not able to follow up with studies, experience, or training in a particular field, it would be unlikely that they would excel in that area, simply by means of the genetic inheritance. Finding an excellent instructor to train and encourage the child is usually the key to developing their potential, with or without inheriting some particular genes.
Because correlation is when two or more things happened at the same time, but not even connected to each other. They might be associated with each other but not connected by cause.
On June 28, 2003, Reuters News Agency reported on a Hungarian medical study of 221 men who carried cell phones. The study found that men who carried cell phones in their front pockets of there pants instead in their jacket or briefcase had 30% lower sperm count than the average male population in 1970.
The problem is that the study only found correlations; it did not determine clear causation. Those people carry cigarettes in their jacket to keep them save from getting crushed. We all know it has been known that smokers usually have a low sperm count. Perhaps smoking caused the lower sperm count rather than position of the cell phone per se. Stress can cause that same problem as well....