[xr4ti]

I really don't like the authors shoehorning a linear model into this work. I perceive it as an attempt to give the article an undeserved veneer of statistical/mathematical rigor.[1]

I think their hypothesis would be much better supported by typical social science approaches, such as citation and quotation of primary sources and comparative study.

For example, how does the Sicilian Mafia compare with the Camorra (Naples) and 'Ndrangheta (Calabria)? Did these organizations undergo a similar expansion during the same time period? Were their origins and expansions rooted in similar phenomena?

[1] https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-o...

[kragen]

I haven't read the paper, so although this response applies to your criticism, it may not apply to the paper in question.

A linear model has only two parameters, which cuts down a lot on the overfitting problem, and since it's the default thing to try, you can be reasonably sure that it isn't the product of a "garden of forking paths". More sophisticated models, such as exponential, logistic, or quadratic — which may in fact be more appropriate on theoretical grounds — can easily be the product of researchers choosing among a large number of possible models based on what the data looks like.

I do not think that your suggested approach of removing science from social sciences, reducing them to a sort of literary criticism or scholasticism, would be an improvement.

[bertil]

It’s less a way to come off as “sciencey” and more a way to get your ideas accepted at this point. The people I know in the list of thanks would wholeheartedly agree with your the regression is forced but it gets neo-classic economists (when I was studying the vast majority and presumably still holding the reins of key publications) to not dismiss you as “psychologists”.

I’m not sure if the right approach is to use basic maths to illustrate the idea makes sense but doesn’t need that formalism to make it acceptable or to refuse the charade. I genuinely think the smarter people I know are also uncertain about it.

[toyg]

> it gets neo-classic economists [...] to not dismiss you as “psychologists”

Lol, that's funny - I'm pretty much at the point of dismissing "fundamentalist neoclassic economists"... As much as they try to deny it, economic studies are just social studies with a couple of simplistic graphs on top to look "mathy".

[jstanley]

As far as I'm concerned, economics is just supply and demand, and the efficient market hypothesis. Anything beyond that is some combination of politics, psychology, and social studies.

[delib]

> be much better supported by typical social science approaches

This implies that linear regression is not a typical social science method. If you review articles in sociology or political science journals, you will find that many articles use quantitative methods, and nearly all of those quantitative articles use regression.

They also attempt to get at the causality implied in their hypothesis. It's hard to do that purely with qualitative methods. Not everybody might find their IV regression convincing (they rarely are), but it's good to see that they tested their hypothesis with data.