|
|
|
|
|
|
by throw0101a
1969 days ago
|
|
|
This new paper actually makes conclusions that are the opposite of what their own data shows: > Two things to note here. (1) the x-axis is logarithmic. There's a HUGE difference in income between the rightmost points. (2) the y-axis spans a TINY effect size. And TINY / HUGE = EVEN TINIER. 3/7 > A randomly sampled highest-income participant ($480.000) would have lower well-being than a randomly sampled lowest-income participant ($15.000) 25% and 33% of the time for the two outcome measures. Income explains 1.5% and 4% of the variance. 5/7 * https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/135383426475696537... * https://lindeloev.net/new-pnas-paper-income-is-a-poor-way-to... |
|
|