I don't think it's joke research, I think they chose an effect that might have positive correlation and proved that, then showed at least one environmental factor that could explain it and how you could find correlation there too. They say themselves at the end that they aren't trying to say it's conclusive evidence in any direction, I believe they're just trying to generally indicate that there does seem to be some sort of environmental factor, and that it's likely possible to discover (or at least get set on the path towards) the true cause via this sort of analysis
Well the stock market succeeding depends on people having irrational faith in the stocks like Tesla, despite making most of their money from Bitcoin than selling cars[0], so that isn't really a valid counterfactual point, since market opinions are based on psychological beliefs.
Maybe I'm missing something here but how does the article you linked support "making most of their money from Bitcoin than selling cars"? It says:
- Revenue of $10.4 billion
- Net income reached $438 million
- sold some of the $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin that it purchased in February, contributing $101 million to the bottom line
- sales of regulatory credits to other auto makers to help them meet emissions mandates, which carry a 100% profit margin, reached $518 million
All this tells us is that they sold some of the bitcoin they bought earlier (a tiny fraction of their total income), they're selling a shedload of cars, and that they're spending a ton of money. Which you'd expect given they're building multiple giant-ass factories at the same time.
I'm no crazy Tesla fan (love some of their tech, hate their 'we own your car' attitude) but you can't argue that they don't usually deliver (let's not talk about FSD :P ).
This is the kind of "research" that leads to CNN headlines like "TV is turning your child autistic!", and other such scare stories for frightened and confused parents that lead to more bullshit salves and treatments that only harm autistics even more (as if we're not getting shit on enough already).
And if it's not intended as a joke, that's even worse.
Precipitation means the kids stay inside and are more likely to watch television[0]. This was influenced by another paper about the link between precipitation and autism[1]. Why do you think it is joke research? Why did you criticize before looking into it?
They're both written by the same people, econ professors that are helplessly out of their field.
They're assuming a lot of things here:
* Rain means children watch televsion, no rain means they do not. This is a harsh oversimplification of how parents work.
* Cable TV was correlated to increased autism diagnosis. But what else is correlated to Cable TV? Wealth. And what's correlated to wealth? Getting your kid diagnosed properly in the country where healthcare is not easily affordable maybe? If you think that's a stretch, well, the entire paper is argued on this sort of thin ice.
* Autism isn't generally considered to have "a trigger", but some circumstances like stress can make it more obvious how a someone with autism is different. Autism is one of these things that aren't objectively measured, but often are diagnosed as a result of how annoyed parents are.
They don't assume that, they showed rain correlates with TV watching. Are you making assumptions about what their study does without reading the article that explains it?