- It’s easier for me to grok statistical significance (p’s and t’s) from a scatterplot than magnitude (β’s).
- Even though magnitude can be the most important thing, it’s “hidden” off to the left. Note to self: look off to the left more, and for longer.
- But I’m set up to understand the correlativeness in a sub_i, sub_j sense — which particular countries fit the pattern as well as how closely.
- Minute __:__ Do each of the dimensions of social problems correlate individually, or is this only a mass effect of the combination?
If it’s true that raising marginal tax rates on the rich lowers crime rates without paying for any anti-crime programmes, that’s almost a free lunch.
UPDATE: Oh, hey, six months after I watch this and 3 days after I put up the story, I see Harvard Business Review has a story corroborating the same effect, instead pointing out how economists don’t look at the p’s and t’s on a regression table. I feel like I “mentally cross out” any lines with a low t value and then wonder about the F value on a regression with the “worthless” line removed.