there's a threshold that's 0.67 SDs (10 points) above the higher-performing of two groups with equal variances who are separated by 0.97 d.
With simulated group sizes of one million persons each, the mean differences decline, and the SDs do too. The new gap is 0.412 d.
But we know that the 0.97 d gap is an underestimate due to range restriction.
Using MBE scores, it looks like the unrestricted gap should be more like 1.22 d. That leaves us with a 0.537 d gap above the threshold.
Do we have subsequent performance measures?
Yes! We have three:
- Complaints made against attorneys
- Probations
- Disbarments
For men, the gaps, in order, are 0.576, 0.513, and 0.564 d. For women, the gaps are 0.576, 0.286, and 0.286 d.
Men fit expectations and women apparently needed less discipline.
These gaps probably replicate nationally.
For example, here are Texas pass rates from 2004 - a 0.961 d Black-White first-pass gap. The 2006 update to these figures raised the gap to 0.969 d.
Those figures are basically in line with LSAC's national study of Bar exam pass rates.
And those are basically in line with New York's gaps.
And this should probably be expected, since tests measure the same things.
Since all of the people included in these statistics went to ABA-accredited schools, they all had the opportunity to learn what was required to perform well on these tests.
But just like the Step examinations for medical doctors, the gaps on the tests and in real life remain.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The smarter the country's population, the faster the economy tends to grow.
You can use modern national IQ estimates to show this, or you can get similar estimates based on the sizes of those population's brains, a proxy for state history (UVR/distance from equator), or their
numeracy in the 19th-century.
It only takes a look at growth chart updates to see there's not major reverse causality between growth and cranial capacity, nor can there be with numeracy two centuries ago, and obviously UVR isn't caused by growth.
Second, the odds of working in a prestigious occupation, controlling for test scores.
Third, household income (HSB/ELS) and personal income (NELS:88).
For this outcome, it appeared there were some bad differences that remained, but only for household income. Follow-up lengths here were 11 years, 11 years, and 9 years, so incomes were still somewhat unstable.
In light of findings from genome-wide association studies, I do not consider generally improved self-control to be an unsurprising side effect of Ozempic.
Consider this: BMI-related genes are primarily expressed in the brain and CNS rather than through hormones or digestion.
But we can be more specific: BMI-related gene expression is relatively extreme in the insula and the substantia nigra.
So what? Well, two things.
First, you may know the insula as the "hidden island of addiction".
There's a lot of human research on the role of the insula in cocaine, heroin, and cigarette addiction, and recently, in obesity. Because it's mostly not causally informative, I'm going to stick to animal models.
I've noticed a lot of people misinterpreting these sorts of graphs to mean that underperforming groups must be receiving some form of affirmative action
That may not be what they show. They primarily show two things
If you have two groups with different means for variable X and you have a threshold for the level of X to get into a classification, the group with more people further out from that threshold will have a higher mean beyond it.
This is purely statistical.
But you see a similar pattern for groups stratified by their parents' education and income levels. This is because of two things.
First, parental SES is not a strong cause. The causal part of the relationship between it and kids' IQs is overstated.