Here’s a Textbook Criticism of Econometrics Gone Bad

A couple of weeks ago I linked to a study that suggested the anti-overdose drug Nalexone might, on net, actually cause more opioid deaths. I was skeptical because the data seemed to show no real pattern. The authors drew a dashed red line at the point where Nalexone was legalized, and sure enough, it looked like opioid deaths jumped after the new laws were passed. But the line seemed entirely arbitrary.

Now Andrew Gelman has weighed in. He has pretty much the same criticisms I did, but he also has the statistical chops to be taken seriously. However, he also links to Richard Border, who doesn’t say a word but lets the numbers speak for themselves:

This is a textbook criticism of statistics based on too few data points. As Border shows, you can put the cutoff line anywhere and it looks like there’s a big jump in opioid deaths. But that doesn’t mean anything. The error bars are enormous, and the before-and-after “trends” are meaningless.

I’d add that this also shows the value of simply using common sense. If you remove all the lines and the error bars and simply look at the scatterplot, there’s nothing there. That should make you skeptical from the very start. It’s true that occasionally you can tease real results out of data like this, but you’d better be damn sure of what you’re doing and you’d better check it ten different ways. The authors of this study didn’t do that.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest