Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming cash payments to poor mothers increased infant brain function, highlighting statistical and methodological issues that undermine its positive conclusions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a recent study claiming that cash payments to low-income mothers increased brain function in babies. He points out several issues with the study, including the loss of statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons, potential artifacts in EEG data visualization, and deviations from pre-registered analysis plans. He also discusses the broader context of research on poverty and cognition, noting the difficulty in finding shared environmental effects and the tendency for studies in this field to be flawed or overhyped. Scott concludes that while the study doesn't prove cash grants don't affect children's EEGs, it essentially shows no effect and should not have been reported as an unqualified positive result. Shorter summary