4 ms·
It's illegal not to provide schooling of some sort, so that is yet a 3rd variable("willingness to commit crimes") that could be a better predictor. I don't car
by MichaelBurge 5y ago
It's illegal not to provide schooling of some sort, so that is yet a 3rd variable("willingness to commit crimes") that could be a better predictor.
I don't care whether schooling causes or doesn't cause a benefit: You called it "trivial" by looking at statistics, and that supreme confidence that there can be no other explanation seems unjustified.
- endisneigh 5y agoI didn’t mention any statistics so I’m not sure what you’re going on about. I’m saying those who don’t go to school make less money. That is empirically true. Selection bias is irrelevant here to the original comment.
- MichaelBurge 5y ago> Are you suggesting kids would be better off if schools didn’t exist with respect to lifetime earnings? > Seems easy to prove wrong by trivially looking at high school dropout vs graduate incomes. There is an implied statistical argument here that by plotting "did X drop out" on one axis and their future income on another, that a correlation would refute a statement that "Schools cause students to earn less". Specifically, you would be: 1. Gathering many examples of individuals(a "population") with boolean "did they drop out?" V1, some income metric V2, maybe some others. 2. Comparing and aggregating V1 and V2 across the population 3. Using it to refute a statement S That is a statistical argument for ~S because it involves comparing population aggregates. You may not have explicitly used the word "statistics" or realized you did it, but you made a statistical argument.