James_K comments on Even if you have a nail, not all hammers are the same - Less Wrong

95 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2010 06:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (125)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Rain 31 March 2010 02:29:32AM *  2 points [-]

This leads me to a prediction: you'd have as much difficulty reading up on results in psychology and sociology as you do in health and medicine.

You're right. I mentally boxed them off when I made my original statement. Thinking further, I might add economics to the list.

Comment author: James_K 31 March 2010 04:29:28AM 4 points [-]

You don't get these problems with economics. In economics journals its standard practice to include your specification, as well as the whole regression output, including a full list of included terms and their significance tests.

When I was completing my Master's degree I was a sessional assistant for an introductory quantitative methods course for economics and finance majors. The type of simple linear regression would be considered overly simplistic at that level (at least in the absence of some simple specification testing), and if the j curve is already accepted in medicine, to model linearly is unforgivable. It's not like non-linear transformations are hard to do either, you can do them in Excel without too much trouble.

FWIW, I'm of the impression that economists get a better grounding in quantitative methods than other social scientists (and I would say that the profession is a bit too keen on mathematical approaches in some cases), so maybe you would have similar problems with psychology or sociology. But I don't think economics has this problem.