Problems off the top of my head: 1. No causal identification. No causal identification. No causal identification. No c
I am pretty sure this tweet is wrong on two or three levels. Can you find them all? But maybe I am wrong. Thoughts?https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/849316701862862851 …
-
-
-
2. Even allowing causal interpretation for every coefficient, Female Educational Attainment's effect size is ~2.5 times larger than unions'
-
3. Permitting crimes against statistics and science and caring about this: collective bargaining's p > 0.05
-
4. I don't see a charitable interpretation of this travesty outside of me completely misunderstand that table.
-
5. If not that, the author is either (i) grossly incompetent, or (ii) a hack of the worst kind, blackening the good name of Data. Ugh. /fin
-
6. DURRRRRRR ignored scaling issues on [2]. Revise to "impossible to interpret practical significance of effect size."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So yeah my first thought was he needed to add "of the ones included in this regression" after the word lever
-
PS. My preferred policy would be subsidized childcare!!!!!
-
I think me too but I'm not totally sure about that. That does seem like a better solution though
-
I'm also perpetually annoyed at how the "gender wage gap" is reported using terrible statistics
-
I KNOW ugggggh excerpt from me a few weeks back, below society is bad and stupid so is discourse abandon shippic.twitter.com/e1vvio5AmX
-
Honestly if there were a political party that said "gender wage gaps are complicated" I'd vote for them!!!
-
or anything at all is complicated and demands analysis not chronic outrage
like
anything
anything at all
pls - 1 more reply
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.
