Oh boy, time for another round of Economists Try To Do Math: - A definitely real regression specification
- Error bars? We don’t need to stinkin’ error bars. We use the Excel bar chart defaults like God intended. And axis labels are for people who want to look like they understand what they’re doing, which we certainly do not.
R Squared of <2 fucking percent. The whole model explains 2% of the variation in income. 2%; the traits alone account for only 0.3%. Literally only one of the “Big five” traits was even statistically significant! This is a nothingburger! I would tell an undergrad nice effort but maybe ask a less stupid question next time.
Oh, so no one? The academic equivalent of self-publishing? The economist sure is going for the hard-hitting research. Anyone who was stupid enough to put their name on this thing deserves to be tarred and feathered.
Those coauthors are from “well regarded” business schools too.
Some competitive MBA programs want you to send in a photo. It’s literally “Hot or Not.” So this kind of bullshit from a business school does not surprise me.
Wharton is really not doing anything to combat the idea that it’s the safety school for failchildren. How many brilliant people are adjuncting out of their cars while the Marius Shitferbrains Guenzels of the world churn this drek out?
![The Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"](https://hexbear.net/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.ml%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F14f5a0b4-82b6-498d-a689-36c2824dd296.png){kind=link}
Oh boy, time for another round of Economists Try To Do Math:
- A definitely real regression specification
R Squared of <2 fucking percent. The whole model explains 2% of the variation in income. 2%; the traits alone account for only 0.3%. Literally only one of the “Big five” traits was even statistically significant! This is a nothingburger! I would tell an undergrad nice effort but maybe ask a less stupid question next time.
Who the fuck was dumb enough to publish this?
Oh, so no one? The academic equivalent of self-publishing? The economist sure is going for the hard-hitting research. Anyone who was stupid enough to put their name on this thing deserves to be tarred and feathered.
Those coauthors are from “well regarded” business schools too.
Some competitive MBA programs want you to send in a photo. It’s literally “Hot or Not.” So this kind of bullshit from a business school does not surprise me.
Wharton is really not doing anything to combat the idea that it’s the safety school for failchildren. How many brilliant people are adjuncting out of their cars while the Marius Shitferbrains Guenzels of the world churn this drek out?
Wharton has failchildren and Booth/CBS have psychopaths.
There are also Rossholes and Hassholes.
… that’s embarrassing.
But it helped with my confidence if this is what passes for science