4 ms·

Even if the underlying statistics accurately represent the situation correctly, bad analysis on top of it creates the same results. From last week: "Paul Krugm

Even if the underlying statistics accurately represent the situation correctly, bad analysis on top of it creates the same results. From last week: "Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would." Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21357096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21357096

QuesnayJr 7y ago
That Foreign Policy article illustrates exactly why the influence of statistics is on the decline. If you read Krugman's original article (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequa...), you can see Krugman make several points, all using statistics. One point is that the effect of globalization in the 90s was small, but it had an unexpectedly large impact on manufacturing in the 2000s. The second point is that the overall effect disguised the fact that certain industries were particularly hard hit. He then cites the papers where you can find the details. These papers only exist because of the statistics they do. Krugman is a clear writer, and he is taking the unusual step of admitting he was wrong, so his article should be interesting. But nobody cares about that, because nobody cares about statistics anymore. They want that dopamine hit of outrage, so they read the FP article, that deliberately misrepresents the argument (notice how "manufacturing" suddenly becomes "workers", despite the fact that most workers are not in manufacturing), and doesn't give any evidence. It just quotes a bunch of people settling scores with Krugman. Even there, it mischaracterizes, for example, Krugman's review of Greider's book to heighten the outrage. Statistics is boring, and rage is interesting, so the Internet era optimizes for rage.

QuesnayJr 7y ago

That Foreign Policy article illustrates exactly why the influence of statistics is on the decline. If you read Krugman's original article (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequa...), you can see Krugman make several points, all using statistics. One point is that the effect of globalization in the 90s was small, but it had an unexpectedly large impact on manufacturing in the 2000s. The second point is that the overall effect disguised the fact that certain industries were particularly hard hit. He then cites the papers where you can find the details. These papers only exist because of the statistics they do. Krugman is a clear writer, and he is taking the unusual step of admitting he was wrong, so his article should be interesting. But nobody cares about that, because nobody cares about statistics anymore. They want that dopamine hit of outrage, so they read the FP article, that deliberately misrepresents the argument (notice how "manufacturing" suddenly becomes "workers", despite the fact that most workers are not in manufacturing), and doesn't give any evidence. It just quotes a bunch of people settling scores with Krugman. Even there, it mischaracterizes, for example, Krugman's review of Greider's book to heighten the outrage. Statistics is boring, and rage is interesting, so the Internet era optimizes for rage.