“A high-profile universal basic income experiment in Stockton, Calif.,
which gave randomly selected residents $500 per month for two years with no strings attached, measurably improved participants’ job prospects, financial stability and overall well-being, according to a newly released study of the program’s first year. […]
Research spanning the full two years of the project will be available in 2022.
In the meantime, similar initiatives are cropping up in cities across the United States.” NPR
X: You know, Y, I like reading stories like this. Stories highlighting how the relationship between observations and facts is continuous and not categorical.
Y: I know why. Because they illustrate how the tendency to confuse statistical meaning with statistical validity can lead to overemphasizing numbers and underestimating the conceptual clarity of a subject.
X: And because they illuminate how the relationship between sample size, statistical validity and conclusions is fluid and not rigid.
Y: Indeed. If a study offers “statistically significant” results, some mistakenly believe that it has proven something.
X: On the other hand, if a result did not reach a statistical level, others believe that it has not proven anything.
Y: An idle trend that oversimplifies the multiplex learning process.
X: Making us forget that knowledge is extracted from experience.
“We are literally at ground zero with sort of the racial reckoning we’re having
but also with the economic impacts of COVID-19,” he said.
“When I think if we can get a guaranteed income, an income floor,
at this time, we also have to have a conversation about the moral awakening our country needs because, again, as Dr. King said, poverty robs us of the richness of a society
where everyone is given the opportunity to realize their full potential.” NPR