Consider a simple Probit model $$ Y_i=1\{X_i\beta+\epsilon_i\geq 0\} $$ where $\epsilon_i$ is standard normal independent of $X_i$.
(1) Cardinality of the support of $X_i$
Is it true that (and, if yes, why) when $X_i$ is a continuous regressor we typically get a confidence interval for $\beta$ that is tighter than when $X_i$ is discrete (for instance binary)?
My confusion: I know that in the classic linear model, if the variance of $X_i$ increases, then the standard error of the estimate for $\beta$ decreases. I suppose a similar mechanism takes place in the Probit model. However, here, we are talking about cardinality of the support of $X_i$ and not about its variance.
(2) Variance of $\epsilon_i$
Suppose that $\epsilon_i$ is distributed as a normal with variance $5$ (instead of $1$) as in the classic Probit model. Suppose that the researcher knows the variance of $\epsilon_i$ (it is not a parameter to estimate).
Is it true that (and, if yes, why) that with a higher variance of $\epsilon_i$ we get a confidence interval for $\beta$ that is tighter?
My thoughts: I know that in the classic linear model, if the variance of the error increases, then the standard error of the estimate for $\beta$ decreases. Essentially, this is because a higher variance of $\epsilon_i$ generates a higher variation in $Y_i$ for each given realisation of $X_i$, which improves the precision of our estimates. I suppose a similar mechanism takes place in the Probit model. Is it correct?
(3) Correlation among latent terms
Suppose now that $Y_i$ can take three values $y\in \{0,1,2\}$ (instead of being binary). Hence, instead of using a Probit model, we use a Multinomial Probit $$ Y_i=argmax_{y\in \{0,1,2\}} \beta X_{iy}+\epsilon_{iy} $$ where $\epsilon\equiv (\epsilon_{i0}, \epsilon_{i1}, \epsilon_{i2})$ is a tri-variate Normal with mean $0$ and variance-covariance matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \rho & \rho\\ \rho & 1 & \rho\\ \rho & \rho & 1 \end{pmatrix}$.
Suppose that the researcher knows the value of $\rho$ (it is not a parameter to estimate). In my simulations, I found that as $\rho$ increases from $0$ to $0.9$, the confidence interval for $\beta$ shrinks. Is that something that should be expected and, if yes, what is the intuition behind?
My thoughts: I think a possible explanation could be that, when $\rho$ is high, the errors are "partly" predictable. This improves our precision in getting $\beta$.