3 ms·
It's amazing that society still puts so much stock into these types of impossibly confounded studies. Ok, so they found that people who are top earners are no
by htss2013 3y ago
It's amazing that society still puts so much stock into these types of impossibly confounded studies.
Ok, so they found that people who are top earners are no more satisfied with their jobs than bottom earners.
Might this be because top earners tend to be the types who neglect other aspects of their lives? Or who are hypercompeitive and are unlikely to be satisfied at any level, otherwise they would have stayed where they were?
Or maybe the higher the pay goes, the higher the concentration of high self discipline people willing to endure things they don't like for money. Etc.
And we are supposed to wave away all of these confounders because of controlled marshmellow experiments done on random students?
I'm sure Harvard meta studies do the best job possible distilling insight from these studies. The problem is how insightful these types of studies are in the first place.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago> It's amazing that society still puts so much stock into these types of impossibly confounded studies That particular example was a meta study of over 100 other studies But sure, I'm sure your expertise in study design and statistics is enough to invalidate their work and the work of hundreds of other researchers simply because you don't agree with the conclusion.
- gusgus01 3y agoThis whole discussion reminds me about the conflicting studies around the correlation or lack thereof of money earned and happiness. There was recently another paper about it that re-analyzed the data, so not a meta analysis, but an interesting example of study design and statistic interpretation: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120#executive-summary-abstract https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120#executive-s...