Yes and no.
Berkson's paradox is a special case of Simpson's for the two subgroups selected and non-selected.
The difference is that Berkson's paradox involves selecting the subgroup a posteriori and in a particular way, Simpson's paradox assumes a selection a priori.
Another difference is that Simpson's "paradox" involves all the subgroups that the full population is partitioned into, unlike Berkson's "paradox".
I like how you put paradox in quotes. I also annoys me when people call these things paradoxes. They're more properly called counter-intuitive phenomena. I wonder if there's a single-word name for that.
paradox :-)
So I actually checked and... turns out you're right.
According to Wikipedia, "paradox" can either mean "logically self-contradictory statement" or a "statement that runs contrary to one's expectation". I always thought that it meant the former only.
These two concepts should really really have separate words.
Re:Berkson's Paradox
by getlawgdon on Thursday March 25, 2021 @07:42AM
(#26579000)
You "checked Wikipedia," is that it? You're done now?
Berkson's paradox: analyzing a single subgroup selected with a function aggregating two traits (additively?) will indicate an anticorrelation between the traits.
Simpson's paradox says you can't judge group trends from subgroup trends. Berkson's paradox says given a group selected in a specific way, it will have a certain property in itself. They're just different statements.