The public narrative around breastfeeding suggests it's crucial for long-term outcomes like IQ. However, data analysis shows the actual benefits are modest and mostly short-term (e.g., digestive health), a stark mismatch with the societal pressure placed on mothers.
Frustrated by the lack of official data on COVID in schools, economist Emily Oster created her own data collection system with a simple Google Form. It grew into a national dashboard, showing that motivated individuals can create essential data when institutions are too slow.
An initially false study linking a food to longevity causes health-conscious people to adopt it. Subsequent studies show a stronger link, not due to the food, but because the people eating it are healthier in general, magnifying the initial error.
After publishing a famous paper, economist Emily Oster spent years gathering better data that invalidated her own findings. She then published a new paper retracting her original conclusion—a rare and commendable act of intellectual honesty that should be celebrated.
Economic models assume information is always valuable. However, few at-risk individuals get tested for Huntington's disease, preferring the hope of a good outcome over the certainty of a devastating diagnosis, even if knowing could optimize life decisions.
When facing a crisis like COVID, waiting for perfect data before acting is not a 'safe' option. The status quo of inaction often carries its own significant, accumulating costs—like student learning loss—that must be factored into the decision.
When facing a tough choice, people often frame it as "do X or not." A better framework is to define the specific, concrete alternative (e.g., "send kid to daycare or hire a nanny" vs. "or quit my job"). This clarifies the true trade-offs involved.