ECON UOM Chinese Economic Stimulus Discussion This is one economic paper, need economic major writer. This is one economic writing project. The detailed wr

ECON UOM Chinese Economic Stimulus Discussion This is one economic paper, need economic major writer. This is one economic writing project. The detailed writing instruction is post in the attached file. Please check and make sure follow all steps. There is one example essay, make sure read that example essay and write one similar format as that paper. word count at least 1400. Methods Project
• Project on research methods described in popular media
• Due on Friday, May 29 (11:59pm)
• Turned in via file upload on Canvas (Word doc or PDF, please)
• Worth 20% of the overall grade
• Can work in groups of up to 6
• Everyone in a group gets the same score.
Methods Project
• Groups
• Formed on Canvas: from course homepage, click on People tab, and then the
Groups tab.
• You can work in any group size from 1 (alone) to 6. To work alone, just find an
empty group and join it by yourself.
• Coordinate your groups before signing up: get everyone together and then
target an empty group slot: “OK, let’s all join group 9”
• Don’t just drop in on someone else’s group: if you see a group you’d like to
join, ask me. If someone joins your group without asking, tell me.
Methods Project
• Basic Idea
• Economists clearly have an axe to grind with other disciplines about research
methods
• It’s my job to indoctrinate you
Methods Project
• Basic Idea
• Labor economists have taken over many other fields because these methods
are such an improvement over the epidemiology approach
• Having a good understanding of when you can conclude that X causes Y is
valuable regardless of what you do in life. Not just for your career (think of
the health example).
Methods Project
• Basic Idea
• Step 1: Go out and find a piece of news written about research that you think
fails to deal with causality correctly.
• This isn’t actually that hard: I heard about the Facebook makes you depressed thing just
by listening to the news on NPR
Methods Project
• Source suggestions (not limitations):
• NPR’s syndicated programs (RadioLab, TED Talks, Marketplace (especially the “Science”
Desk)
• Blog-post style news (Huffington Post, Drudge Report, BuzzFeed)
• CNN Health or Science
• Links your parents post to you on Facebook
• Pretty much anything in Epidemiology (nutrition and physiology are similar)
• Newspaper sections on “Lifestyle”
Methods Project
• Send me a link to the article that you want to research and your
group members for approval.
• Try and do this at least a week before the due date (so I don’t get
overwhelmed with them) and definitely before you do any work (so you
don’t waste your time)
• I’ll basically make sure your choice of article indicates that you understand the
assignment
Methods Project
• If I get an assignment written about an article that doesn’t have a
problem with causality, or has nothing to do with causality, it will with
99% certainty get a bad grade.
• Last term: I got articles about opinions, randomized controlled experiments
and stuff that was obviously repurposed from other courses.
Methods Project
• Step 2 – Write About the Article (in 2 parts)
• Explain the article and its causal claim
• Explain your critique of that claim, in terms of what we’ve talked about
(reverse causality, selection, omitted variable bias)
• Give some specific examples (stories) detailing the process by which causality could fail
(recall the Facebook example)
Methods Project
• Step 3 – Propose a Better Study (in 2 parts)
• First: the ideal experiment you would run if you could control everything and
didn’t have to worry about morality
• Next: a feasible approximation of the ideal study
• This could consist of a small modification of the design or a complete re-vamping
• It could be an experiment, or just use a different strategy with real data (the same as or
different from the article). Use these lecture slides as a guide.
Methods Project
• So the whole thing (intro, body, conclusion) should be at most 4 doublespaced pages. It would be awesome if it were less (for the grader), but below
3 pages, I would start to worry if you can fit a thorough analysis into that
space (but if you are really confident that you can, that’s totally fine).
•
Bottom line: I don’t care if it’s short if it’s good. I care about it being long
either way.
Methods Project
• Grading:
• I don’t really care about style, interested in content, but good style makes
good content better
• How well do you understand the difference between correlation and causation in the
context of the article?
• Is the argument for a failure of causality well-supported and linked to issues identified in
class?
• Does the solution proposed actually get around the criticism? Is the feasible solution
feasible? Does the ideal solution indicate understanding of the problem?
Methods Project
• Feel free to e-mail me with questions on your specific article/project
whenever you want.
• There’s an example of a great project available on Canvas in the
Methods module.
• I highly encourage to get together with your group –by video most
likely– to discuss and plan the article together rather than do
separate parts.
1
Effects of Marijuana Use
On November 11, 2014 CNN Health released an article on the effects of marijuana use
on the brain. The article comments on a new study from the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS); which is a multidisciplinary
scientific journal. The article by CNN claims that this study proves that long term use of the drug
can cause problems with the brain, including lowering someone’s IQ.
The article starts by stating that users of the drug will have worse effects if they started
using at an early age. Their explanation for this is that developing brains that are exposed to the
drug will mature in a different way than normal. The study used 48 individuals who used the
drug between 14 and 30, and 62 individuals who did not use the drug of the same distribution.
All individuals tested by giving a urine sample, getting an MRI scan, and taking an IQ test.
One of the more conclusive results was, on average the marijuana users had 5 IQ points
less than non-users. The researchers state that the most effected part of the brain was the
orbitofrontal cortex, which is responsible for things such as decision making. It is important to
note that the researchers themselves stated that the study does not make a definite
conclusion, but does allow for some important insight.
The last small portion of the article provided a statement from Mason Tvert, who is the
director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. His comments emphasized the
comments from the researchers on how no definitive conclusion was made. He then went on to
comment on how these findings still do not support the argument in keeping the drug illegal.
His claim was that even though the drug may possibly have negative side effects, it is still better
than the effects of alcohol.
The largest problem that I find with the article was reverse causality of the claim that
marijuana lowers individuals’ IQ. I think that there is a difference in the users due to the users
choosing to use marijuana or not. Since individuals can choose to use or not, the result of this
data could say that having a lower IQ causes individuals to use marijuana. I feel that having a
lower IQ would have a great effect on the decision to use marijuana or not. It could be that
those with a smaller IQ have a harder time making good decisions. Another possibility could
2
stem from a lower IQ leading to struggling in school. The drug could offer an escape for a way
to fit in with peers in a different way.
Immediately, the article makes a claim that shows the evidence may be due to preexisting conditions, “Researchers found that compared to nonusers, people who smoked
marijuana starting as early as age 14 have less brain volume, or gray matter, in the orbitofrontal
cortex,” (Young). The data showed a remarkable conclusion, but the interpretation is off.
Instead, the users may have had smaller brain volume before using. Since the orbitofrontal
cortex is responsible for decision making, people with the smaller brain region could come to
different decisions on what to do. This conclusion is not hard to make with a simple story. Let’s
say the average person has both a normal sized brain and decides not to use marijuana. Now,
there is an individual with a smaller region of the brain that helps with decision making. Seeing
that person make a decision on whether to use harmful drugs (whether truly harmful or simply
perceived) or not becomes less obvious on which they will choose.
The next major finding can be concluded with the same logic, “Filbey said the people
who regularly used marijuana had IQ’s that were five points lower, on average, than the
nonusers in the study,” (Young). Again, pre-existing conditions may apply. All of these users
have a lower IQ, but it is just as important to know their IQ before they started using. The
researchers themselves did not make the definitive conclusion, “there is no definitive proof that
marijuana alone was to blame for the lower IQ,” (Young). Simply stating that there is not
definitive proof is not enough. Leaving the answer vague like the researchers did, allows for
sites such as CNN to post misleading headlines and articles. The quote that the article uses next
is a perfect example of how a partially inconclusive study can influence people, “Dr. Susan
Weiss, associate director for Scientific Affairs at the National Institute on Drug Abuse said the
study provides more strong evidence about the dangers of marijuana,” (Young).
Lastly, the article ends by including an opposing argument. My first reaction is to praise
the news source for doing this, but the praise only goes so far. Mason Tvert, the owner of the
opposing argument, was used because his insight was largely useless. Tvert briefly comments
on how the researchers claimed no definitive conclusion and commented on unrelated
materials, “There remains no doubt that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol to the brain
3
and to the rest of the body,” (Young). I feel that his quote was used to create an illusion of
being impartial. Comparing marijuana with the effects of other legal substances may be useful
in debates, but what was needed were comments on the actual research.
Overall, I find the main problem with the experiment is that pre-existing conditions were
not accounted for. However, there are some missing variables that could be a factor. One such
problematic missing variable is the use of other drugs. The experiment is set to conclude the
use of drugs on people, so it included drug users. However, I find it very plausible that someone
who chooses to use drugs would choose to use multiple drugs. There are also many legal drugs
that are widely used, not just illegal. Long term effects on drugs such as Adderall are not
completely known and may possibly affect the user.
If I were to construct a perfect experiment I would be focused on people before and
after they use the drug. The best way to test for this is using a diff-n-diff study. The most
important key of the experiment is to see if there is a difference in the individual’s brain after
extended use of the drug. That is why it is important to account for all drugs entering the
individual.
To do this, I would want one-thousand individuals randomly chosen from the ages of 10
to 60. To control for substance intake all individuals would only be allowed to take medications
that they were previously using. No new medications may be taken and no medications
currently being used may be dropped. All individuals would then be examined just as the
original experiment. They would submit to an MRI and take an IQ test, as well as give a urine
sample. Since the experiment is not asking how much drug affects individuals but if it does, the
amount of marijuana consumed will be controlled. Those consuming the drug will all take the
same amount per day and in the same way. Of course, no other illegal drugs will be allowed.
Once the participants are tested, 20 percent will be given access to the drug each year
for 5 years. An important part of the experiment is not allowing selective biased. So,
participants will not be allowed to choose when they will start using the drug or if they use it at
all. After ten years, data again will be collected. The participants will submit to and MRI, IQ test,
as well as give a urine sample. If done correctly, the results will tell us if the use of marijuana
affects the brain.
4
Now, this experiment of mine has many problems. Not only would no one agree to be
part of this experiment, but it would be incredibly immoral. There is an important piece of
information to acquire from the ideal experiment though. The main point to take away is that a
before-and-after study of marijuana needs to be done. Finding a missing variable from the
original experiment, such as other drugs used, is feasible. The researchers may be able to
contact all original participants and ask them about drug use. The amount gained from doing so
would not be significant enough however. What needs to be done is a brand new experiment.
To construct a realistic experiment, participants would have to be somewhat selected.
There are two ways to find participants who do not use the drug but may so in the future. The
first way is to find participants in a state that will soon legalize the drug. Oregon would be a
good example. Next year, the use and ownership of the drug will no longer be illegal to the
state of Oregon. So, it is very likely that use of the drug will rise with the accessibility. The other
way is to find a young audience, before they discover the drug. In both cases selective bias still
exists, but it does record pre-existing conditions.
Since the article claimed that the effects of marijuana are more severe for young adults,
I would choose young adults for the experiment. I would randomly select kids in middle schools
from across the country. All of the same tests would be conducted as in the original. Over the
course of several years, I would have the participants submit their drug use regularly. In the
end, there would be many individuals close in age with hopefully not all of them users or all
non-users.
To conclude the experiment, I would have all individuals resubmit all tests completed in
the beginning. The amount of the drug used cannot be controlled, so it is important to include
in the regression. Overall I would include age, sex, if the participant used, how much they used,
and dummy variable for if they used other illegal drugs.
When constructing an experiment, it is always important to remember the question that
is trying to be solved. When the researchers conducted the experiment, they left out some very
key components that affect the answer. If the question was, are people who use marijuana
different from those that do not use, than a definitive answer would have been given. Instead,
5
they allowed themselves to get affected by missing variable biased and they were not able to
control for pre-existing factors.
15/15 – Very clear writing, great understanding of the article and the issues, clear experiments
proposed. Great work!
Works Cited
Young, Saundra, and Mathew Stucker. “Regular Pot Habit Changes Your Brain, May Even Lower
Your IQ, Study Says.” CNN. Cable News Network, 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/health/pot-and-your-brain/index.html
Filbey, Francesca M. “Long-term Effects of Marijuana Use on the Brain.”Long-term Effects of
Marijuana Use on the Brain. PNAS, 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/05/1415297111.abstract?sid=04b2b5197a82-4da5-9aa3-1d9da67ee8ef

Purchase answer to see full
attachment