Maybe I haven't read carefully enough, but I want to add another problem that I didn't see here: Causality in the other direction. For example, I've seen multiple papers in which an association between poverty and some negative trait was tested, such as low intelligence, and when they got the unsurprising result that these two are associated, they immediately state that this proves poverty causes the negative trait. However, it should be obvious that there is a wide range of negative traits that would adversely impact your monetary situation, by reducing income and/or by increasing wasteful spending.
This is an excellent article, but I find it a little too credulous regarding quasi-experimental designs. See e.g.
Wei Jiang, Have Instrumental Variables Brought Us Closer to the Truth, The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Volume 6, Issue 2, September 2017, Pages 127–140, https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfx015
So are you saying findings of “Eureka" (I have found (it)) should be tempered to “Perchance”? ;-) And if so, does such forceful conclusion get published?
Appreciate your missive however, it is a good reminder of what I’ve forgotten over time.
Maybe I haven't read carefully enough, but I want to add another problem that I didn't see here: Causality in the other direction. For example, I've seen multiple papers in which an association between poverty and some negative trait was tested, such as low intelligence, and when they got the unsurprising result that these two are associated, they immediately state that this proves poverty causes the negative trait. However, it should be obvious that there is a wide range of negative traits that would adversely impact your monetary situation, by reducing income and/or by increasing wasteful spending.
This is an excellent article, but I find it a little too credulous regarding quasi-experimental designs. See e.g.
Wei Jiang, Have Instrumental Variables Brought Us Closer to the Truth, The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Volume 6, Issue 2, September 2017, Pages 127–140, https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfx015
So are you saying findings of “Eureka" (I have found (it)) should be tempered to “Perchance”? ;-) And if so, does such forceful conclusion get published?
Appreciate your missive however, it is a good reminder of what I’ve forgotten over time.