There are people who desperately want this to be untrue🧵
One example of this came up earlier this year, when a "Professor of Public Policy and Governance" accused other people of being ignorant about SAT scores because, he alleged, high schools predicted college grades better.
The thread in question was, ironically, full of irrelevant points that seemed intended to mislead, accompanied by very obvious statistical errors.
For example, one post in it received a Community Note for conditioning on a collider.
But let's ignore the obvious things. I want to focus on this one: the idea that high schools explain more of student achievement than SATs
The evidence for this? The increase in R^2 going from a model without to a model with high school fixed effects
This interpretation is bad.
The R^2 of the overall model did not increase because high schools are more important determinants of student achievement. This result cannot be interpreted to mean that your zip code is more important than your gumption and effort in school.
If we open the report, we see this:
Students from elite high schools and from disadvantaged ones receive similar results when it comes to SATs predicting achievement. If high schools really explained a lot, this wouldn't be the case.
What we're seeing is a case where R^2 was misinterpreted.
The reason the model R^2 blew up was because there's a fixed effect for every high school mentioned in this national-level dataset
That means that all the little differences between high schools are controlled—a lot of variation!—so the model is overfit, explaining the high R^2
This professor should've known better for many reasons.
For example, we know there's more variation between classrooms than between school districts when it comes to student achievement.
This study is being investigated since it includes results by convicted fraud Stephen Breuning.
Without his huge, fake estimates, the meta-analysis is riddled with publication bias. Correcting for it makes the meta-analytic estimate practically and statistically nonsignificant.
It is also just unserious to think that a meta-analysis including obvious rubbish should overturn much better established facts.
For example, one of the cited studies claimed to show IQ scores improving by 3.64 g (55 IQ points) when kids (n = 10) were offered a $5 cash prize.
You reveal a lot about yourself if you take nonsensical and unreplicable results seriously.
This meta-analysis never should have been published because of the included fraudulent work, the included garbage work, and the failure to consider psychometric bias explaining results.
People across the political aisle engage in conspiracy theorizing at markedly similar rates, just about different things.
Q: Does each side do this to the same extent?
A: Probably not! In the case above, to get the appearance of total symmetry, you have to include a lot of different conspiracies that are very Trump-related.
Q: What about general conspiracist intent and ideation?
A: That's plausibly higher on the right in the U.S., even after accounting for measurement non-invariance. It's not globally higher, but few correlates of politics are globally consistent. More on this soon.
The biggest news today should probably be about one of the Executive Orders from yesterday evening.
Trust me, it's big.
The President just authorized DOGE to start cutting regulations🧵
This order starts off huge.
Remember those recently-created DOGE Team Leads going into every agency? They're going to work with agency heads and the OMB to review all of the regulations across a number of huge categories.
The first category is those rules and regulations which violate the law of the land: unlawful and unconstitutional regulations, things that agencies enacted but which they shouldn't have been able to.
The biggest news of the day is not so much that @RobertKennedyJr was confirmed by the Senate, but what he's going to do next.
@realDonaldTrump just issued an Executive Order making it official:
America stands against chronic disease and closed science🧵
The first thing the EO does is outline the problem
It talks about how unhealthy America is, how unacceptable that is, and how we have a duty to change that
We do: Americans should not just be the richest people in the world, they should be the hottest, healthiest, and strongest
Now beyond outlining the problems America faces, the Order outlines some policy prerogatives that will be front-and-center during this new administration.
I want to preface something here: Regardless of what you think about the people involved, something here will make you happy
The biggest news of the day should once again be about DOGE.
A new Executive Order was passed a few minutes ago.
It empowers DOGE to spearhead the complete reorganization of the federal government🧵
The first part of this Order is simple:
The OMB will put out a plan to make the federal workforce smaller and more efficient, including a stipulation that agencies must remove four existing employees for each new hire, with some exceptions.
The second part is meatier.
New hires have to be approved by newly-installed DOGE Team Leads in each agency. These Team Leads will report what goes on in the agency they're assigned to on a monthly basis.