Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

艺术与人文
商务
计算机科学
数据科学
信息技术
健康
数学和逻辑
个人发展
物理科学与工程
社会科学
语言学习
學位和證書

瀏覽 Coursera 的全部課程

瀏覽
搜索
企業版
登錄
免費加入

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

Loading...

使用 Tableau 展示可视化数据

4.7（1,933 個評分） | 110K 名學生已註冊

課程 3（共 5 門，从 Excel 到 MySQL：商业分析技术專項課程）

查看授課大綱

One of the skills that characterizes great business data analysts is the ability to communicate practical implications of quantitative analyses to any kind of audience member. Even the most sophisticated statistical analyses are not useful to a business if they do not lead to actionable advice, or if the answers to those business questions are not conveyed in a way that non-technical people can understand. In this course you will learn how to become a master at communicating business-relevant implications of data analyses. By the end, you will know how to structure your data analysis projects to ensure the fruits of your hard labor yield results for your stakeholders. You will also know how to streamline your analyses and highlight their implications efficiently using visualizations in Tableau, the most popular visualization program in the business world. Using other Tableau features, you will be able to make effective visualizations that harness the human brain’s innate perceptual and cognitive tendencies to convey conclusions directly and clearly. Finally, you will be practiced in designing and persuasively presenting business “data stories” that use these visualizations, capitalizing on business-tested methods and design principles.

您將學習的技能

Data Analysis, Tableau Software, Data Visualization (DataViz), Visualization (Computer Graphics)

審閱

4.7（1,933 個評分）

5 stars
1,439 ratings
4 stars
408 ratings
3 stars
58 ratings
2 stars
12 ratings
1 star
16 ratings

EA

Mar 17, 2018

a GREAT course to learn Tableau in one course. It's wonderful course with great instructors. I recommend it to everyone who likes to learn Tableau and become a data scientist or a business analyst.

AC

Jan 08, 2019

The course was well designed and encouraging to explore additional features of Tableau by myself. I learned a lot throughout the course and would highly recommend to take this course to my friends.

從本節課中

Your Communication Toolbox: Visualizations, Logic, and Stories

Welcome to week 4! This week you will become a master at getting people to agree with your data-driven business recommendations as you learn to deliver a compelling business presentation. You’ll learn about the insight from the intersection of visualization science and decision science, and what this means for you as a data analyst, who seeks to design a compelling and effective business presentations. If you intend to affect people’s decisions, you need to influence where they look. This week we will review a set of tools and concepts you can use to optimize your visualizations and your presentation style. You will soon be a master at getting people to agree with your data-driven business recommendations! <p>By the end of this week, you will be able to:<p><ul><li>Tell stories with data</li> <li>Design effective slide presentations to showcase your data story, and</li> <li> Deliver compelling business presentations</ul></li><p> Remember to refer back to the Study Guide: Designing and Delivering Effective Presentations. You will also complete a graded quiz. <p>As always, if you have any questions, post them to the <b>Discussions</b>.<p> To get started, please begin with the video “Using Visualization to Influence Business Decisions.”<p> I hope you enjoy this week's materials!

The Best Stress-Testers are Teams3:11

Overgeneralization and Sample Bias5:46

Misinterpretations Due to Lack of Controls3:52

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation6:03

How Correlations Impact Business Decisions8:36

教學方

Daniel Egger
Executive in Residence and Director, Center for Quantitative Modeling
Jana Schaich Borg
Assistant Research Professor

If I showed you a chart like this, and I said the blue line is the marketing

budget in dollars, and the red line is the amount of product purchased.

How many of you would think that increasing the amount of money dedicated

to marketing leads to increases in customer purchasing?

So this is what the graph actually shows.

The blue line shows the number of movies Nicholas Cage was in per year, and

the red line shows the number of people who died that year by falling into a pool.

I am not kidding about that.

I got this graph from www.tylorvigen.com.

A very funny website, I highly recommend that you check out to see other examples

of bizarre things that seem to correlate.

This graph is made from real data though, from the Centers of Disease Control and

Prevention and the Internet movie database.

I promise you it's not made up.

You can go look it up and pop the numbers yourself.

As you can see it looks to our eye like there is a decent relationship between

these two things over the years.

Now knowing that, how many of you think that the number of movies

Nicholas Cage is in per year causes increases in pool drownings?

Or that the number of pool drownings per year increases the number of

movies Nicholas Cage agrees to star in?

I'm gonna hypothesize that some of you are willing to guess that the amount of money

invested in marketing does indeed cause customers to purchase more.

However despite the fact that I showed you the exact same data in both graphs I asked

you to evaluate.

I hypothesise that many few of you were willing to say

that Nicolas Cage movies cause pool drownings.

Or that pool drownings caused Nicolas Cage to star in more movies.

And for the record you were correct if you said that Nicolas Cage movies do not

cause pool drownings.

And that pool drownings do not cause Nicolas Cage to star in more movies.

When the match between two sets of data is compelling and

close, like these examples are, psychologically it's very

easy to tell yourself that one thing you are measuring is causing the other.

It's also very easy for an audience to tell themselves the same thing.

It can actually be quite difficult to prevent yourself from telling that causal

data story.

However, as the Nicolas Cage pool drownings example shows us because it is

so bizarre, as well as the rest of these real life examples that I've now shown

with their true titles.

Just because two variables correlate or

seem to be linked to one another, it does not mean that one causes the other.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Before we continue, it might help to define some terms.

Correlation refers to the phenomenon of two things having a tendency to vary

together over multiple time points or multiple measurements.

The number of Nicolas Cage movies and

number of pool drownings were correlated in our example.

Causation refers to the phenomenon of one thing happening as the result

of the other thing.

If I punched you and you got a black eye, you've done enough scientific experiments

to know that my punch caused your black eye.

If I punched you again, you'd get a black eye again,

and I'd probably get a black eye too, since you'd probably punch me back.

A coincidence is when purely by chance two things happen at the same time.

A spurious relationship is when either due to chance or

due to an unmeasured variable, but not by direct causality, two things correlate.

Let me explain what I mean by an unmeasured variable.

The coincidence or spurious relationship we observed on our graph earlier

might be due to a variable we didn't pay any attention to, summer activities.

Nicholas Cage tends to be in blockbuster movies that are released during

the summer, especially summers with big events.

In addition, people go into the pool primarily during the summer,

and more pool parties might occur during summers with big events.

So the reason Nicholas Cage movies and pool drownings might be so

correlated is because they're both related to the unmeasurable variable, summertime.

I don't know if that's the case, but

it's a good hypothesis that might explain the spurious relationship we see.

Now that we know know what these terms are, let's return to why the issue

of correlation not equaling causation is dangerous for business analytics.

If the reason you're analyzing data is to determine what changes we should make in

your business processes, you are determined to make changes that will

cause improvements in your business processes.

The changes you recommend are due to graphs that only show correlation but

do not show causation.

Your recommendations might not work or

even worse, they could cause decreases in business performance.

Let's look at a business example that makes this very clear.

Imagine you run an analysis that finds the number of Internet

security breaches companies have correlates with the number of engineers

companies have in their Internet security department.

This surprises you and goes against your intuition,

so like a good analyst you find another data set with another set of companies and

see if you can replicate the effect.

You do.

Based on this data, you might then infer that having a great number of engineers in

your Internet security department causes more security breaches.

As a consequence,

you then recommend that your company reduce it's number of engineers.

If you did this, however,

your recommendation would have catastrophic consequences of course.

Your company would probably end up with an even greater number of security breaches.

The reason why is that having a greater number of security breaches

caused executives in your company to seek help from engineers, not the reverse.

The increased numbers of engineers might not have solved the security breach

problem, but if you fire all of your engineers you'll have no chance of solving

the security problem.

Now, since most of us know that it will be impossible to fight

Internet security breaches if you don't do something to protect your Internet system,

this would have been a logical mistake that was very easy to identify.

But what if I replaced the labels on this chart with labels depicting the number of

larger ads on a web site and click-through rate?

Click-through rates represent the percentage of users who click on

an advertisement link when they see it.

So this graph shows us that the larger the ad, the higher the click-through rate.

I want you to imagine that are a data analyst working on a marketing project.

Really close your eyes and create a vision of what that would look and feel like.

You are new to the job, you really wanna impress your boss.

You spent the past few days getting and cleaning your data.

When you finally get the data into Tableau, and in a couple seconds,

you see this graph.

I want you to really think about this.

If you were in that situation and you saw this graph,

would you be tempted to assume that larger ads cause higher click through rates?

And you would you be tempted to come to the conclusion that the company should

invest their money in larger ads?

If so, you are now getting a flavor of why misinterpreting correlation is so

common in business, but also so dangerous.

I know these conclusions sounded tempting, but

the data on this graph do not support a causal relationship anymore than they

did when we were looking at the number of security engineers and security breaches.

Recommending that the business invest in larger ads without any further information

would be a risky financial recommendation to make.

What kind of information would make that recommendation less risky?

Watch the next video to find out.

探索我們的目錄

免費加入並獲得個性化推薦、更新和優惠。

Coursera 致力於普及全世界最好的教育，它與全球一流大學和機構合作提供在線課程。

© 2019 Coursera Inc. 保留所有權利。

通過 App Store 下載

通過 Google Play 獲取

Coursera
關於
管理團隊
工作機會
目錄
證書
MasterTrack™ 證書
學位
企業版
政府版

社區
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

連接
博客
Facebook
領英
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
技術博客

更多
條款
隱私
幫助
內容訪問
媒體
聯繫我們
目錄
附屬公司