Thank you for your clear explanation. I liked how you compared the assumptions behind each test, especially highlighting that Spearman’s rho is useful when data are not normally distributed. I wonder, in cases where data are continuous but clearly non-linear, would you still consider using Pearson if the normality assumption is somewhat met, or would you prefer to apply Spearman just to be safe? I think your point about choosing the right test to validate the results is very important misusing these tools can lead to completely wrong conclusions.