> which is exactly the kind of meaningless result you'd expect from doing ~20 statistical tests over random numbers. (The paper lists hundreds of p-values.)
On page 20 they describe using the Westfall and Young method to adjust for multiple hypothesis testing and report adjusted and unadjusted p-values.
They also pre registered their analysis with depression as a primary outcome and breaking down by medical debt quartile as pre registered subgroup analysis.
In the highest quartile of medical debt group, 45.9% percent in the no debt forgiveness group had at least moderate depression vs 58.3% in the debt forgiveness group, p=0.002
Dismissing this as a meaningless result seems unfair given that they preregistered their analysis and adjusted for multiple comparisons.
I’m not a stats expert and haven’t spent much time with the paper, but I’d suggest checking the methods section before making claims.
I worked at an HFT firm and initially they were focusing on hiring people like MIT grads and programming competition winners. But eventually they realized their social skills were often not the best and went for a more well-rounded candidate.
I worked at another firm in the finance space that hired a PhD with poor social skills who had to be let go because he would try to aggressively “checkmate” other people by proving them wrong and say that they were dumb. It got so bad that other people refused to be in meetings with him.
If someone works at the airport and is screaming at people with limited English proficiency who rarely fly, that is the fault of the rude employee. They should get a different job.
It’s a customer facing role where the main responsibility is directing confused and anxious people.
See, that's where you're wrong. Their main responsibility is preventing a violent attack. At least, according to the people who set the agenda and policies for frontline employees. Faulting "rude" employees is futile; even when you have legitimate reason and desire to correct their behavior, do you sit there and negotiate with the scanner operator? No, you go to their boss. So, who is responsible?
Simple fix: don't cook with extra virgin olive oil on high heat. The smoke point is one reason. Flavor is another. Cost is a third (less expensive fats are better suited for this task)
On page 20 they describe using the Westfall and Young method to adjust for multiple hypothesis testing and report adjusted and unadjusted p-values.
They also pre registered their analysis with depression as a primary outcome and breaking down by medical debt quartile as pre registered subgroup analysis.
In the highest quartile of medical debt group, 45.9% percent in the no debt forgiveness group had at least moderate depression vs 58.3% in the debt forgiveness group, p=0.002
Dismissing this as a meaningless result seems unfair given that they preregistered their analysis and adjusted for multiple comparisons.
I’m not a stats expert and haven’t spent much time with the paper, but I’d suggest checking the methods section before making claims.
reply