4 ms·

How exactly would you suggest people read the paper? The article linked to a brief [1] which says literally absolutely nothing about how they conjured up their

How exactly would you suggest people read the paper? The article linked to a brief [1] which says literally absolutely nothing about how they conjured up their numbers. And the paper itself is here [2]. It's rather worse than a paywall. Instead the paper is restricted to their "sponsors" until an embargo of up to 6 months. This sort of behavior should not instill confidence in the paper's conclusions. And I think it was completely reckless of the Guardian to run an eye catching headline with absolutely 0 justification given to the numbers other than an implicit appeal to authority by calling it an MIT paper. Though such is the state of the media today. [1] - http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf [2] - http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-papers/681 http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-papers/681

shakna 9y ago
I'm not sure if it's purposeful, or how long the hole will remain open, but you can see the full paper. Remove the "-Brief". [0] The paper is fairly open about their methodology, and give access to things like the actual survey being answered, rather than just saying "a survey matching these criteria was used". Most of their data apparently has come through Harry Campbell [1], and his yearly survey, which has it's own data and methodology out in the open [2]. I'm not remotely qualified to analyse it, but you can see the data from therideshareguy's survey if you're looking to critique the results of this paper. (I've edited this paragraph to try and get less push/offensive. I'm still not happy with it, but the aphasia is kicking my butt. Rest assured, I'm just trying to be helpful, and just wanted to point the direction to discussing the data. Still not happy with this phrasing either.) [0] http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf [1] https://therideshareguy.com https://therideshareguy.com [2] https://therideshareguy.com/2018SurveyReport https://therideshareguy.com/2018SurveyReport
slaymaker1907 9y ago
In other words, the paper is currently less than worthless since it can easily mislead people. At this point, it is little more than an appeal to authority.
Clanan 9y ago
Good point, but even getting this far is better than dismissing it out of hand because of a sponsors list. I do agree that the lack of actual paper does not instill confidence.

shakna 9y ago

I'm not sure if it's purposeful, or how long the hole will remain open, but you can see the full paper. Remove the "-Brief". [0] The paper is fairly open about their methodology, and give access to things like the actual survey being answered, rather than just saying "a survey matching these criteria was used". Most of their data apparently has come through Harry Campbell [1], and his yearly survey, which has it's own data and methodology out in the open [2]. I'm not remotely qualified to analyse it, but you can see the data from therideshareguy's survey if you're looking to critique the results of this paper. (I've edited this paragraph to try and get less push/offensive. I'm still not happy with it, but the aphasia is kicking my butt. Rest assured, I'm just trying to be helpful, and just wanted to point the direction to discussing the data. Still not happy with this phrasing either.) [0] http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf [1] https://therideshareguy.com https://therideshareguy.com [2] https://therideshareguy.com/2018SurveyReport https://therideshareguy.com/2018SurveyReport

slaymaker1907 9y ago

In other words, the paper is currently less than worthless since it can easily mislead people. At this point, it is little more than an appeal to authority.

Clanan 9y ago

Good point, but even getting this far is better than dismissing it out of hand because of a sponsors list. I do agree that the lack of actual paper does not instill confidence.