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
3 replies 6 retweets 101 likesShow 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
4 replies 4 retweets 94 likesShow 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
2 replies 4 retweets 92 likesShow 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/!
2 replies 3 retweets 77 likesShow 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
5 replies 10 retweets 149 likesShow 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 be6 replies 2 retweets 91 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
if they care so much about infant mortality why didnt they bother to light up enough neurons to get their results right this seems like v*rt** s*gn*ll*ng
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
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.