Earlier today I spent some time shitting on this paper without a broader discussion of why I was doing so I shall hold forth on this matter now as I think it is revealing of the absolute state of empirical social science and microeconometrics in particularhttps://twitter.com/RRHDr/status/1295488617125687297 …
-
-
heres some text from the methods section along with some of the figures from the paper depending on your background you may find your eyes glazing over before opening it or you may be shouting imprecations at your phone good news if your former! it doesnt fucking matterpic.twitter.com/Kowy5rCDSn
Show this thread -
heres a dumb person version of the Findings meditate on it for a moment before we continuepic.twitter.com/xH2bmj9qnH
Show this thread -
"black babies were three times more likely to die if overseen by a white doctor" really REALLY fucking really
@Fixed_Effects is the corresponding author and he may take this thread as my CorrespondenceShow this thread -
suppose for a moment that this were actually true what do physical reality do you imagine might cause this outcome? what specific actions can you imagine all white doctors taking that no black doctors take that would *triple* infant mortality independent of everything else?
Show this thread -
stray intrusive thought 'average white doctor kills black babies at triple rate of black doctors' factoid a statistical error. average white doctor kills black babies at same rate. Racist Georg who delivers in a cave and eats over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not h
Show this thread -
generally when a model produces fantastical results you should feel good about discarding the model. and this is absolute insanity there are a million things that can go wrong in this kind of estimation and the approach used by the authors handles like . . . five of them
Show this thread -
this kind of cockup is the *norm* in reduced form microeconometrics it is remarkable only for being wildly unreasonable, and nevertheless making it through a paper-thin review process (by people whos careers are built on the same methods) because it produced the Correct result
Show this thread -
the authors are careful to run through a series of apotropaic tests to ensure that a few well-understood issues did not obtain in their model its thorough, people myself included spend years learning these Rituals its akin to making sure submarine screen doors are up to code
Show this thread -
if you complete the Ceremony it is extremely unlikely that anyone will bother observing that your results are absolutely cockamamie its econometrics-by-recipe "order the data in such a way, run all the standard tests, publish, gib tenure" no iota of reflection necessary
Show this thread -
This paper is so egregious that it knocked me awake If they'd claimed /using the same methods/ like "5% increase in mortality" I would have slept through it But--those methods would have been equally bad /had they produced a reasonable result/!
Show this thread -
I want to emphasize that in closing Everything is fucked and you don't usually see it because it's not egregious enough to break the surface but everything in social science is fucked. Don't succumb to Gell-Mann Amnesia just stop reading empirical papers. Ed Prescott was right.pic.twitter.com/g20u9dGCXE
Show this thread -
Special thanks to
@RRHDr,@Fixed_Effects,@aaronsojourner &@LauraHuangLA for the object lesson And to@PNASNews, which my old undergrad advisor helpfully explained stands for "Prints Nearly Any Shit" You should all be embarrassed but I bet you won't beShow this thread
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.