Naw, don't want or expect them to be zero. IQ has some predictive power, but just not all of it.
-
-
Replying to @NickWolfinger
I'm sorry to be publicly ragging on your analysis but it really doesn't show what you want it to show :/
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
No no, rag away. That's what it's there for. Again, I'm not blind to the endogeneity in my kitchen sink model, so just consider the 0 order analysis. The correlation is respectable, but not predominant.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
so--it's pretty tricky trying to isolate the effect of whatever AFQT proxies for, unless you have a strong theoretical model you might SORT of take it as exogenous given the heritability of IQ (that increases with age!) but pretty plausibly lots of childhood effects . . .
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @NickWolfinger
might spring into play eg, your parents are probably high IQ if you are, they are plausibly more likely to be able to provide more opportunities for your childhood environment, etc all of this as a preface to saying: you could (with this data set) come up with . . .
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @NickWolfinger
a sort-of upper bound on AFQT explanatory power for future earnings by (say) looking at age 18 AFQT (did they give it at 18? at whatever year) and and doing a univariate(ish) nonparametric estimation of (income at 40 | AFQT at 18) say, throw these into a RF and pull the R^2
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @NickWolfinger
but, looking at changes in R^2 for all of these explanatory variables with and without AFQT isn't going to get you what you suggested in your analysis, because those other explanatory variables are collectively almost surely quite correlated with AFQT
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @NickWolfinger
that is to say, your R^2 = 0.48 probably includes a substantial effect from AFQT (or whatever that proxies) simply mediated by those other, plausibly-downstream variables so getting only a 0.02 R^2 increase from adding it doesn't mean its explanatory power is so limited
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @NickWolfinger
the other issue is that unless you're being extremely aggressive about model specification and didn't mention it, your RE panel is not going to pick up the full plausible explanatory power of your variables in the way that a more flexible model class would
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
there's also the overfitting that comes with trad econometric methods that don't take advantage of modern regularization techniques, but that's a problem in the other direction anyway I guess my message is something like "be very careful interpreting R^2 and changes thereof"
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @NickWolfinger
thank you for coming to my unhinged ted talk :) and please do accept my apologies for the initial exasperation, this is at an intersection of about twelve personal betes noires
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
No worries. I was responding to my own bete noire--IQ EXPLAINS EEVVVEEERYHTINGGG--in about an hour. I realize that my multivariate model isn't the strongest test possible....
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.