Statistics / social science folks:

When authors of an observational study claim they 'controlled for' various confounding factors, how much should I trust that they actually successfully did?

Never? Only sometimes? (If so, when? Do you have heuristics you use?)

The evidence strongly suggests that pre-K is just day care.

noahpinion.substack.com/p/pre-k-is-day…

People tend to have a simple rule (e.g. 'cancel culture = bad,' or 'race in hiring = bad') and get reflexively angry at anything that pattern-matches to that

So I really appreciate the rare people who reflect on the specifics of each case to decide if it's actually bad 👇

Workarounds people use to overcome 'technical' limitations intended to prevent name changes:

reddit.com/r/dataisbeauti…

Maybe Graham Coop or Molly Przeworski could explain why you felt the book was 'nudging the reader towards genetic determinism'?

In this review, Graham Coop & Molly Przeworski allege that 'it is hard not to interpret the book as saying that most of these GWAS effects are natural causes residing inside the brain, thereby nudging the reader towards genetic determinism'. Let's take a look at what the book says!

Thread! Everyone's talking about this new study showing cash transfers 'speed up brain activity' in babies (pnas.org/content/pnas/1…).

It must be a big deal, because it was announced with a 'Breaking News' tweet by no less than the New York Times: twitter.com/nytimes/status…

The movie 'Monsters University' sounds like a refreshing exception of a kids' movie, in that it
- Rejects the common trope of 'You should never give up on irrational dreams!'
- Is still heartwarming and inspiring

blog.plover.com/movie/self-est…