andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-74 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Alan and Felix .
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('felix', 0.711), ('alan', 0.704)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 74 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-08-“Extreme views weakly held”
Introduction: Alan and Felix .
2 0.22677028 2362 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-06-Statistically savvy journalism
Introduction: Roy Mendelssohn points me to this excellent bit of statistics reporting by Matt Novak. I have no comment, I just think it’s good to see this sort of high-quality Felix Salmon-style statistically savvy journalism.
3 0.19921933 1005 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-11-Robert H. Frank and P. J. O’Rourke present . . .
Introduction: I suppose if I can write an article with George Romero, there’s no reason that a noted economist and a legendary humorist can’t collaborate ( link from Felix Salmon). I wonder how they got together in the first place?
4 0.12912923 1264 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-14-Learning from failure
Introduction: I was talking with education researcher Bob Boruch about my frustrations in teaching, the idea that as statisticians we tell people to do formal experimentation but in our own teaching practice we typically just try different things without even measuring outcomes, let alone performing any formal evaluation. Boruch showed me this article with Alan Ruby about learning from failure. Unfortunately I’ve forgotten all my other thoughts from our conversation but I’m posting the article here.
5 0.096777245 331 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Bayes jumps the shark
Introduction: John Goldin sends in this, from an interview with Alan Dershowitz: Q: The lawyerly obligation to not change your mind, to defend a position right or wrong–do you find that it seeps over into the rest of your life? A: No, it doesn’t because I’m a professor first, and as a professor I’m always changing my mind. I mean, my students go crazy in my class because I’m the most orthodox Bayesian in the world. [Bayesian probability theory is a way of modeling how the human mind reasons about the world. It assumes that people have prior beliefs about the probability of a given hypothesis and also beliefs about the probability that the hypothesis, if true, would generate the evidence they see. Taken together, these beliefs determine how people update their faith in a hypothesis in light of new evidence.] I do everything based on Bayes analysis, and Bayes analysis is always based on shifting probabilities and constantly changing and being adaptive and fluid. Although, who am I t
6 0.087796517 1119 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award
8 0.069644608 1111 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-The blog of the Cultural Cognition Project
10 0.06081637 1003 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-11-$
11 0.059874829 588 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-In case you were wondering, here’s the price of milk
12 0.059021685 1223 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-20-A kaleidoscope of responses to Dubner’s criticisms of our criticisms of Freaknomics
13 0.057465009 966 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-A qualified but incomplete thanks to Gregg Easterbrook’s editor at Reuters
14 0.056908008 2174 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-17-How to think about the statistical evidence when the statistical evidence can’t be conclusive?
15 0.05302709 525 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-19-Thiel update
16 0.052362569 505 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-05-Wacky interview questions: An exploration into the nature of evidence on the internet
17 0.051720396 895 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-08-How to solve the Post Office’s problems?
18 0.051001672 1060 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-15-Freakonomics: What went wrong?
19 0.047374945 62 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-01-Two Postdoc Positions Available on Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling
20 0.044492245 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.006), (1, -0.008), (2, -0.002), (3, 0.003), (4, -0.011), (5, 0.002), (6, -0.003), (7, 0.006), (8, 0.001), (9, 0.01), (10, -0.02), (11, -0.005), (12, 0.006), (13, -0.002), (14, -0.011), (15, 0.002), (16, -0.011), (17, 0.032), (18, 0.008), (19, -0.003), (20, 0.0), (21, -0.013), (22, 0.012), (23, -0.019), (24, 0.008), (25, -0.024), (26, 0.006), (27, 0.002), (28, 0.005), (29, -0.01), (30, 0.012), (31, 0.016), (32, -0.004), (33, -0.004), (34, -0.011), (35, -0.011), (36, -0.018), (37, -0.004), (38, -0.022), (39, -0.015), (40, -0.008), (41, -0.0), (42, -0.016), (43, 0.021), (44, -0.001), (45, -0.007), (46, -0.011), (47, 0.024), (48, -0.017), (49, -0.014)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999762 74 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-08-“Extreme views weakly held”
Introduction: Alan and Felix .
2 0.55648613 1060 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-15-Freakonomics: What went wrong?
Introduction: Kaiser and I tell the story . Regular readers will be familiar with much of this material. We kept our article short because of space restrictions at American Scientist magazine. Now I want to do a follow-up with all the good stories that we had to cut. P.S. Let me remind everyone once again that Freakonomics (the book and the blog) has some great stuff. Kaiser and I are only picking on Levitt & co. because we know they could do so much better. P.P.S. Just to emphasize: our point that Freakonomics has mistakes is nothing new—see, for example, the articles and blogs by Felix Salmon, Ariel Rubenstein, John DiNardo, and Daniel Davies. The contribution of our new article is explore how it was that all these mistakes happened, to juxtapose the many strengths of the Freakonomics franchise (much of the work described in the first book but also a lot of what appears on their blog) with its failings. In some ways these contrasts are characteristic of social science research in
3 0.50423008 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
Introduction: A friend/colleague sent me some comments on my recent article with Kaiser Fung on Freakonomics. My friend gave several reasons why he thought we were unfair to Levitt. I’ll give my reply (my friend preferred that I not quote his email, but you can get a general sense of the questions from my answers). But first let me point you to my original post, Freakonomics 2: What went wrong? , from a couple years ago, in which I raised many of the points that ultimately went into our article. And here’s my recent note. (I numbered my points, but the email I was replying to was not numbered. This is not a point-by-point rebuttal to anything but rather just a series of remarks.) 1. Both Kaiser and I are big fans of Freakonomics. It’s only because Levitt can (and has) done better, that we’re sad when he doesn’t live up to his own high standards. If we didn’t convey this sense of respect in our American Scientist article, that is our failing. 2. I think it was at best tacky and
4 0.48516843 1180 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-22-I’m officially no longer a “rogue”
Introduction: In our Freakonomics: What Went Wrong article, Kaiser and I wrote: Levitt’s publishers characterize him as a “rogue economist,” yet he received his Ph.D. from MIT, holds the title of Alvin H. Baum Professor at the University of Chicago, and has served as editor of the completely mainstream Journal of Political Economy. Further “rogue” credentials revealed by Levitt’s online C.V. include an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a research fellowship with the American Bar Foundation, membership in the Harvard Society of Fellows, a fellowship at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a stint as a consultant for “Corporate Decisions, Inc.” That’s all well and good, but, on the other hand, I too have degrees from Harvard and MIT and I also taught at the University of Chicago. But what really clinches it is that this month I gave a talk for an organization called the Corporate Executive Board. No kidding. In my defense, I’ve never actually called myself a “rogue.” But still .
Introduction: Jonathan Cantor pointed me to a new blog post by Stephen Dubner in which he expresses disagreement with what Kaiser and I wrote in our American Scientist article , “Freakonomics: What Went Wrong?”. In response, I thought it would be interesting to go “meta” here by considering all the different ways ways that I could reply to Dubner’s criticism of our criticism of his writings. (In the same post, Dubner also slams Chris Blattman (or, as he calls him, “a man named Chris Blattman”), but I won’t get into that here.) In reacting to Dubner, I will give several perspectives, all of which I believe . Usually in writing a response, one would have to choose, but here I find it interesting to present all these different perspectives in one place. 1. Understand. I understand where Dubner is coming from. We say some positive things and some negative things about his work, but it’s natural for him to focus on the negative. I’m the same way myself, probably almost all autho
6 0.4621172 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
7 0.42992023 1692 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Freakonomics Experiments
9 0.42173633 1099 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Approaching harmonic convergence
10 0.4111284 1632 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-20-Who exactly are those silly academics who aren’t as smart as a Vegas bookie?
12 0.4033795 2362 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-06-Statistically savvy journalism
13 0.40101576 1005 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-11-Robert H. Frank and P. J. O’Rourke present . . .
14 0.39520425 339 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Battle of the NYT opinion-page economists
15 0.3729817 310 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-The winner’s curse
16 0.37182254 625 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-23-My last post on albedo, I promise
18 0.36118984 622 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-21-A possible resolution of the albedo mystery!
19 0.34749776 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
20 0.34588245 238 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-No radon lobby
topicId topicWeight
[(77, 0.59)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 74 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-08-“Extreme views weakly held”
Introduction: Alan and Felix .
2 0.83189994 230 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Kaggle forcasting update
Introduction: Anthony Goldbloom writes: The Elo rating system is now in 47th position (team Elo Benchmark on the leaderboard). Team Intuition submitted using Microsoft’s Trueskill rating system – Intuition is in 38th position. And for the tourism forecasting competition, the best submission is doing better than the threshold for publication in the International Journal of Forecasting.
3 0.70710677 1006 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-12-Val’s Number Scroll: Helping kids visualize math
Introduction: This looks cool.
4 0.58145773 911 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-More data tools worth using from Google
Introduction: Speaking of open data and google tools, see this post from Revolution R: How to use a Google Spreadsheet as data in R .
5 0.42698506 1071 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-19-“NYU Professor Claims He Was Fired for Giving James Franco a D”
Introduction: One advantage of teaching statistics is that you don’t have to worry about any celebrities taking your class.
6 0.39814591 1784 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-01-Wolfram on Mandelbrot
7 0.37491894 1684 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-20-Ugly ugly ugly
9 0.36737454 380 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-29-“Bluntly put . . .”
10 0.34995967 978 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-28-Cool job opening with brilliant researchers at Yahoo
12 0.31190422 57 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Roth and Amsterdam
13 0.31111088 1124 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-17-How to map geographically-detailed survey responses?
14 0.30673304 1604 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-An epithet I can live with
15 0.24339555 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
16 0.23059025 1005 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-11-Robert H. Frank and P. J. O’Rourke present . . .
17 0.22906028 2059 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-12-Visualization, “big data”, and EDA
18 0.20545731 562 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-06-Statistician cracks Toronto lottery
19 0.19713733 374 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-27-No matter how famous you are, billions of people have never heard of you.
20 0.19593544 93 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-My proposal for making college admissions fairer