3 ms·

> The paper do not give out any P values [...] for their primary findings. The relative effect is large, but I interpret that more like a warning flag. Incorre

by tofof 8y ago

> The paper do not give out any P values [...] for their primary findings. The relative effect is large, but I interpret that more like a warning flag. Incorrect. The p-values -- all 85 of them -- are presented in the appendix[1], linked to in the first paragraph under the 'Results' heading, along with means, standard deviations, and number of observations. The article text[2] repeatedly references these tables when making each claim. > The paper do not give out any [...] confidence intervals for their primary findings. Incorrect. Confidence intervals are presented in 100% of the figures. > The article does not explore if the effect [on marriage or employment] could be exclusively a result of lower education. Incorrect. They explicitly consider the effect of educational attainment on future economic earnings. "Behavioral changes downstream of prenatal testosterone exposure, such as any effect of disruptive behavior on schooling or educational attainment, are likely candidate pathways linking male co-twin exposure to later earnings. Consistent with this interpretation, conditioning on educational attainment in the earnings equation reduced the coefficient on opposite-sex from −0.086 (SE, 0.021) to −0.042 (SE, 0.014), suggesting that roughly 50% of intensive margin labor market effects could be explained by educational outcomes that are upstream of earnings. > Those two numbers [H.s. dropout rate / college graduation rate] seems connected ... some relation seems implied. These measures are already known to be strongly correlated, along with the correlations to the probability of inclusion within the labor force and lifetime earning potential. The paper makes no claims that these four measures are independent from one another. The paper does explicitly make clear when findings of independence are relevant, particularly in usually-correlated variables. In this case I'm referring to their findings of a fertility rate effect independent from marriage rate. 1: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2019/03/14/1812786116.DCSupplemental/pnas.1812786116.sapp.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2019/03/14/181278611... 2: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/14/1812786116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/14/1812786116

belorn 8y ago
> are presented in the appendix[1], Thank you, missed the appendix. Also see that in the figure page list CI as 95%. > These measures are already known to be strongly correlated... The paper does explicitly make clear when findings of independence are relevant The first few paragraphs in the article here and the Significance section in the actually paper imply a strong independence. My point above is basically that the independence looks to be much weaker than a casual read might imply. It also boast with the largest study ever done on the subject, which might be true, but the absolute number are actually quite low with only a few individuals being responsible for a large effect in the data. That is one of the biggest warning signs that exist in this kind of research. I thus get skeptical, at which point I start to look why there seems to be a disconnect.

by tofof 8y ago

belorn 8y ago

> are presented in the appendix[1], Thank you, missed the appendix. Also see that in the figure page list CI as 95%. > These measures are already known to be strongly correlated... The paper does explicitly make clear when findings of independence are relevant The first few paragraphs in the article here and the Significance section in the actually paper imply a strong independence. My point above is basically that the independence looks to be much weaker than a casual read might imply. It also boast with the largest study ever done on the subject, which might be true, but the absolute number are actually quite low with only a few individuals being responsible for a large effect in the data. That is one of the biggest warning signs that exist in this kind of research. I thus get skeptical, at which point I start to look why there seems to be a disconnect.