You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Kingoftheinternet comments on [Retracted] Simpson's paradox strikes again: there is no great stagnation? - Less Wrong Discussion

30 Post author: CarlShulman 30 July 2012 05:55PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (51)
Tags: statistics simpson's paradox

Comments (51)

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

Comment author: Kingoftheinternet 30 July 2012 10:49:14PM 3 points [-]

According to Thomas Bayes, the analysis isn't quite wrong. Comment reproduced for your convenience:

Based on the census tables that he cites, here’s what I see for 2005 (in 2005 dollars):

All men: $31,725

White men: $32,179 * Soltas says $31,725, which is the median for all men.

White, not hispanic men: $35,345

Conard says $35,200 for white men, which is very close to the number for white, not hispanic. The number he uses for white women is $19,600. The Census data that Soltas cited shows $19,451.

Based on this quick comparison, I’m not sure that Soltas has discredited Conard’s analysis.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit