Fascinating, and I gotta say, the Wikipedia article explained what Simpson's Paradox actually was in a way that worked a whole lot better for me than this article. But, interesting article nonetheless.
> The idea that statistical data, however large, is insufficient for determining what is “sensible,” and that it must be supplemented with extra-statistical knowledge to make sense was considered heresy in the 1950s<p>Notable point.
I wrote a blog post about Simpson’s Paradox. One of my more popular pieces.<p><a href="https://blog.forrestthewoods.com/my-favorite-paradox-14fab39524da" rel="nofollow">https://blog.forrestthewoods.com/my-favorite-paradox-14fab39...</a>
Any report making conclusions about trends in data that doesn't defend against possible Simpson's Paradox issues shouldn't be taken seriously.