This whole thing is silly as are many of these studies. They arbitrarily treat things as random. Consider this:

> Children who grow up with high economic connectedness earn 20 percent more as adults on average than otherwise similar children who do not.

"otherwise similar children" is doing a lot of work here.

You have high economic connectedness, which may mean you grew up in a rich neighborhood to parents that are smart and value education.

Or maybe you're connected to your Harvard classmates who are successful, which means you're likely smart and work hard.

Or you're a successful networker, so you're socially adept.

But it's almost certainly not a random characteristic like having hazel eyes. No matter how hard they try to control for other things.

Because (taking the blog at face value) that would require future events causing past events, and that's relatively uncommon.

That's the question that popped up into my head shortly after starting to read the article.

Correlation != Causation

[dead]