site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2914 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 29, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The teacher assessment was a survey on their grades, so not quite subjective. Re the second study:

substantial impacts to Roma minorities

Unfortunately, if the teachers of the Roma students are more likely to be Roma themselves (likely), then they would lie on both grades and teacher surveys, which explains their unique results. A researcher can’t come out and say “we found a significant finding, but only among Roma, therefore it should be ignored”, sadly, as there’s political correctness which prevents an academic from noting that the entire Roma culture is based on scheming and cheating and stealing. Really, Roma populations should be excluded from most studies. But if you look at this:

First, looking at short-term GPAs (Panel A), we find only small impacts which, in most cases, do not reach significance at conventional levels. There is an improvement of 2% SD, on average, for students in the self-learning treatment, but it is only marginally significant (at the 10% level)

Next, looking at medium-term and long-term GPAs (Panels B and C), we find some evidence that the impacts of our intervention on academic achievement become stronger over time, particularly for specific groups. Impacts, on average, are estimated at 3% SD (significant at the 5% level) for the teacher-delivery treatment one year post-treatment, with no significant impact for the stu- dent self-learning arm. Even if these are still small impacts, they are notable considering the short duration and relatively low intensity of our intervention and that evaluations of human capital interventions often yield fade-out effects over longer time periods (Hart et al 2023; Bailey et al 2020; Bouguen et al 2019)

There are just not many studies that have measured the effect of a grit intervention (or any proxy for “hard work” ideology) on academic performance, .

This study in Germany finds a “4% improvement in GPA”: https://media-api.suub.uni-bremen.de/api/core/bitstreams/69dec0aa-d690-4c4e-94ab-a82b460fbdc7/content

And there’s this one: https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/Alan%20Boneva%20Ertac%20Grit%202019.pdf which finds

In the second follow-up in Sample 2, which we administered approximately 1.5 years after the intervention, we still find a positive and significant treatment effect of 0.19 standard deviations for math (permutation p-value =0.026) and a positive albeit insignificant effect for verbal scores. Similarly, for Sample 1 where we have data from a 2.5 year follow-up, we find that the treatment has a persistent effect on standardized math performance. In particular, the treatment raises student achievement in the standardized math test by 0.23 standard deviations (permutation p-value =0.044).

A 0.23 SD change in a typical high school GPA is a change of 0.14, which translates to 1.7% higher annual earnings. That kind of sucks! Because there’s a significant wellbeing cost if somebody believes that they have an obligation to always “try their hardest” for optimal results under the belief that this secures their success. And if all that this can do is bring a 70k yearly salary up to 72k, it’s just not worth it. If you told a youth that their hardest work will only move the needle by 1.7% annual earnings, he would probably conclude in himself that it’s not worth it to be faithful to the “gospel of hard work”. Maybe there’s another study that finds a greater effect and I haven’t seen it?

The teacher assessment was a survey on their grades, so not quite subjective. Re the second study:

Yes, but they also asked the teachers to evaluate their grit and self-control, if memory serves.

Really, Roma populations should be excluded from most studies.

Interesting.

Even if these are still small impacts, they are notable considering the short duration and relatively low intensity of our intervention and that evaluations of human capital interventions often yield fade-out effects over longer time periods

Right - if these minor efforts had good effects, it seems likely that a more prolonged effort earlier in life would have stronger impact.

That kind of sucks!

Again, you aren't addressing the point that studies that screen out environmental effects will screen out the effort OP wants to do.

If you told a youth that their hardest work will only move the needle by 1.7% annual earnings, he would probably conclude in himself that it’s not worth it to be faithful to the “gospel of hard work”.

If I told a youth this he would probably laugh at me for suggesting that getting lectured in class from time to time had that much of an impact on his life choices.

And if all that this can do is bring a 70k yearly salary up to 72k, it’s just not worth it.

I would happily accept a lecture telling me to work hard in exchange for an extra $100,000 over the course of a 50 year career! I would accept a lecture from you in exchange for $2000 right now! A monthly lecture, even!

Maybe there’s another study that finds a greater effect and I haven’t seen it?

Again, unless any of these studies you've dug up are looking at home life, we can assume that school intervention studies will control for home environment which means they tell us nothing about OP's plan.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats