

While I get where you’re coming from, most people don’t understand what’s normal to others because they think their experience is normal. And most of us won’t get to experience someone else’s experiences to figure out what’s normal for others and what isn’t. You might be fully satisfied with your situation because it is a good situation, but it also might be because you don’t know any better and think what you experience daily to be the norm for everyone, similarly to people living in a dictatorship regime who don’t even know about the possibility of living free so they’re content with their situation.
I’m not saying it’s your case, I’m not saying you should feel bad or that there’s something that doesn’t work the way it should. I’m saying you don’t really know how things should work because you only have your experiences to rely on, and your satisfaction might derive from not knowing what something should actually feel/be like in comparison to what it is.

Yes, when there’s a causation link between things there’s also a correlation between them. But correlation does not imply causation means the link doesn’t go the other way. It’s like, every dog is an animal, but not every animal is a dog.
Correlations might be useful to figure out common causes, for example the correlation between student height and reading skills, could mean taller people are more educated, or, more likely, that your students are young enough that age is an important factor at play.
And finally, correlation might be just a fluke of chance, for example the amount of automotive recalls related to AirBags correlates almost perfectly with the popularity of the first name Killian: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/correlation/2599_popularity-of-the-first-name-killian_correlates-with_automotive-recalls-for-issues-with-the-air-bags that site has other similar examples.
So yeah, correlation might be important, but they might be nothing at all, so don’t just assume that a correlation implies causation.