andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-163 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: From “Judge Savage,” by Tim Parks: That evening, Daniel called Hilary’s parents. These people always disliked me, he knew. He had never understood if it was a racial thing, or whether they would have disliked any partner of Hilary’s. Very clever. Parks demonstrates Daniel’s blind spot–he can’t imagine that maybe Hilary’s parents hate him because of his unpleasant personality–but does it entirely from Daniel’s perspective. I wonder if this just came naturally to Parks, or whether he figured it out as a puzzle to solve–how to convey a blind spot from the perspective of the person looking and not noticing it–or whether Parks wasn’t thinking at all about this and it just happened. Considering the character Daniel’s psychology, I’d consider the above as an example of the so-called fundamental attribution error, in that he’s attributing Hilary’s parents dislike of him to situational factors rather than to his own personality. I’ll have more on “Judge Savage” later (on the topic
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 From “Judge Savage,” by Tim Parks: That evening, Daniel called Hilary’s parents. [sent-1, score-0.049]
2 He had never understood if it was a racial thing, or whether they would have disliked any partner of Hilary’s. [sent-3, score-0.646]
3 Parks demonstrates Daniel’s blind spot–he can’t imagine that maybe Hilary’s parents hate him because of his unpleasant personality–but does it entirely from Daniel’s perspective. [sent-5, score-0.749]
4 I wonder if this just came naturally to Parks, or whether he figured it out as a puzzle to solve–how to convey a blind spot from the perspective of the person looking and not noticing it–or whether Parks wasn’t thinking at all about this and it just happened. [sent-6, score-1.369]
5 Considering the character Daniel’s psychology, I’d consider the above as an example of the so-called fundamental attribution error, in that he’s attributing Hilary’s parents dislike of him to situational factors rather than to his own personality. [sent-7, score-0.696]
6 I’ll have more on “Judge Savage” later (on the topic of “fighting the last war”). [sent-8, score-0.136]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('hilary', 0.461), ('parks', 0.461), ('daniel', 0.301), ('disliked', 0.246), ('blind', 0.211), ('savage', 0.207), ('spot', 0.195), ('judge', 0.158), ('parents', 0.146), ('whether', 0.117), ('noticing', 0.112), ('partner', 0.11), ('attributing', 0.108), ('evening', 0.105), ('unpleasant', 0.104), ('fighting', 0.1), ('tim', 0.099), ('dislike', 0.095), ('demonstrates', 0.094), ('attribution', 0.093), ('racial', 0.092), ('puzzle', 0.089), ('figured', 0.088), ('character', 0.084), ('personality', 0.084), ('understood', 0.081), ('convey', 0.081), ('naturally', 0.08), ('war', 0.073), ('hate', 0.071), ('entirely', 0.069), ('considering', 0.068), ('solve', 0.067), ('fundamental', 0.066), ('factors', 0.062), ('wasn', 0.059), ('imagine', 0.054), ('psychology', 0.053), ('later', 0.052), ('perspective', 0.052), ('wonder', 0.051), ('called', 0.049), ('error', 0.048), ('person', 0.048), ('topic', 0.045), ('looking', 0.044), ('came', 0.043), ('consider', 0.042), ('thinking', 0.041), ('last', 0.039)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 163 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-The fundamental attribution error: A literary example
Introduction: From “Judge Savage,” by Tim Parks: That evening, Daniel called Hilary’s parents. These people always disliked me, he knew. He had never understood if it was a racial thing, or whether they would have disliked any partner of Hilary’s. Very clever. Parks demonstrates Daniel’s blind spot–he can’t imagine that maybe Hilary’s parents hate him because of his unpleasant personality–but does it entirely from Daniel’s perspective. I wonder if this just came naturally to Parks, or whether he figured it out as a puzzle to solve–how to convey a blind spot from the perspective of the person looking and not noticing it–or whether Parks wasn’t thinking at all about this and it just happened. Considering the character Daniel’s psychology, I’d consider the above as an example of the so-called fundamental attribution error, in that he’s attributing Hilary’s parents dislike of him to situational factors rather than to his own personality. I’ll have more on “Judge Savage” later (on the topic
2 0.17093588 1701 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-The name that fell off a cliff
Introduction: John Tillinghast points us to this blog entry by Hilary Parker. Here’s what she found: Hey—nice graph! P.S. Those of you who are interested in this sort of thing should check out the Baby Name Wizard blog which is full of thoughtful, data-based explorations about names.
3 0.12580891 440 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-01-In defense of jargon
Introduction: Daniel Drezner takes on Bill James.
4 0.11051249 370 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Who gets wedding announcements in the Times?
Introduction: I was flipping through the paper yesterday and noticed something which I think is a bit of innumeracy–although I don’t have all the facts at my disposal so I can’t be sure. It came in an item by Robert Woletz, society editor of the New York Times, in response to the following letter from Max Sarinsky ( click here and scroll down): The heavy majority of couples typically featured in the Sunday wedding announcements either attended elite universities, hold corporate management positions or have parents with corporate management positions. It’s nice to learn about the nuptials of the privileged, but Times readers would benefit from learning about a more representative sampling of weddings in our diverse city. I [Sarinksy] am curious as to how editors select which announcements to publish, and why editors don’t make a sustained effort to include different types of couples. Woletz replied: The Weddings/Celebrations pages are truly open to everyone, and The Times persistentl
5 0.10111925 1622 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-Can gambling addicts be identified in gambling venues?
Introduction: Mark Griffiths, a psychologist who apparently is Europe’s only Professor of Gambling Studies, writes: You made the comment about how difficult it is to spot problem gamblers. I and a couple of colleagues [Paul Delfabbro and Daniel Kingjust] published this review of all the research done on spotting problem gamblers in online and offline gaming venues (attached) that I covered in one of my recent blogs .
6 0.096415475 2122 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-03-Objects of the class “Lawrence Summers”: Arne Duncan edition
8 0.08186087 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
9 0.070880145 2141 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-20-Don’t douthat, man! Please give this fallacy a name.
10 0.067485973 1965 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-02-My course this fall on l’analyse bayésienne de données
11 0.066196956 1782 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-30-“Statistical Modeling: A Fresh Approach”
12 0.06461446 1279 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-24-ESPN is looking to hire a research analyst
13 0.062906027 1899 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-14-Turing chess tournament!
14 0.059414737 1220 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-19-Sorry, no ARM solutions
15 0.056735769 1029 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-26-“To Rethink Sprawl, Start With Offices”
16 0.056273241 1290 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-I suppose it’s too late to add Turing’s run-around-the-house-chess to the 2012 London Olympics?
17 0.053764991 601 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-05-Against double-blind reviewing: Political science and statistics are not like biology and physics
18 0.052966092 416 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-16-Is parenting a form of addiction?
19 0.051832844 1305 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-07-Happy news on happiness; what can we believe?
20 0.050976593 1062 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-Mr. Pearson, meet Mr. Mandelbrot: Detecting Novel Associations in Large Data Sets
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.06), (1, -0.024), (2, -0.001), (3, 0.003), (4, -0.002), (5, -0.003), (6, 0.022), (7, 0.011), (8, 0.009), (9, 0.009), (10, -0.02), (11, -0.004), (12, 0.001), (13, -0.001), (14, 0.015), (15, -0.018), (16, 0.004), (17, -0.017), (18, 0.015), (19, -0.008), (20, -0.002), (21, -0.025), (22, 0.015), (23, -0.025), (24, 0.033), (25, -0.012), (26, -0.02), (27, 0.002), (28, 0.02), (29, -0.039), (30, 0.012), (31, 0.022), (32, -0.009), (33, -0.015), (34, 0.007), (35, -0.005), (36, -0.001), (37, 0.013), (38, -0.003), (39, 0.006), (40, 0.006), (41, 0.036), (42, 0.012), (43, -0.017), (44, -0.027), (45, 0.03), (46, 0.004), (47, 0.016), (48, 0.037), (49, 0.024)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94661427 163 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-The fundamental attribution error: A literary example
Introduction: From “Judge Savage,” by Tim Parks: That evening, Daniel called Hilary’s parents. These people always disliked me, he knew. He had never understood if it was a racial thing, or whether they would have disliked any partner of Hilary’s. Very clever. Parks demonstrates Daniel’s blind spot–he can’t imagine that maybe Hilary’s parents hate him because of his unpleasant personality–but does it entirely from Daniel’s perspective. I wonder if this just came naturally to Parks, or whether he figured it out as a puzzle to solve–how to convey a blind spot from the perspective of the person looking and not noticing it–or whether Parks wasn’t thinking at all about this and it just happened. Considering the character Daniel’s psychology, I’d consider the above as an example of the so-called fundamental attribution error, in that he’s attributing Hilary’s parents dislike of him to situational factors rather than to his own personality. I’ll have more on “Judge Savage” later (on the topic
2 0.6788106 370 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Who gets wedding announcements in the Times?
Introduction: I was flipping through the paper yesterday and noticed something which I think is a bit of innumeracy–although I don’t have all the facts at my disposal so I can’t be sure. It came in an item by Robert Woletz, society editor of the New York Times, in response to the following letter from Max Sarinsky ( click here and scroll down): The heavy majority of couples typically featured in the Sunday wedding announcements either attended elite universities, hold corporate management positions or have parents with corporate management positions. It’s nice to learn about the nuptials of the privileged, but Times readers would benefit from learning about a more representative sampling of weddings in our diverse city. I [Sarinksy] am curious as to how editors select which announcements to publish, and why editors don’t make a sustained effort to include different types of couples. Woletz replied: The Weddings/Celebrations pages are truly open to everyone, and The Times persistentl
3 0.65263677 2141 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-20-Don’t douthat, man! Please give this fallacy a name.
Introduction: Regular readers of this blog will know that I’m always on the lookout for new items for the lexicon . It’s been a good month on that front. In addition to the Garden of Forking Paths, I’ve encountered two entirely new (to me) fallacies. The first of the two new fallacies has a name that’s quite a mouthful; I’ll hold off on telling you about it right now, as Eric Loken and I are currently finishing a paper on it. Once the paper’s done, I’ll post it in the usual place (or here , once it is scheduled to be published) and I’ll add it to the lexicon as well. What I want to talk about today is a fallacy I noticed a couple days ago. I can’t think of a good name for it. And that’s where you, the readers, come in. Please give this fallacy a name! Here’s the story. The other day on the sister blog I reported on a pair of studies involving children and political orientation: Andrew Oswald and Nattavudh Powdthavee found that, in Great Britain, parents of girls were more likely
4 0.64729613 2212 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-15-Mary, Mary, why ya buggin
Introduction: In our Cliff thread from yesterday, sociologist Philip Cohen pointed to his discussions in the decline in the popularity of the name Mary. One thing that came up was the traditional trendiness of girls’ names. So I thought I’d share my thoughts from a couple of years ago, as reported by David Leonhardt: Andrew Gelman, a statistics professor at Columbia and an amateur name-ologist, argues that many parents want their boys to seem mature and so pick classic names. William, David, Joseph and James, all longtime stalwarts, remain in the Top 20. With girls, Gelman says, parents are attracted to names that convey youth even into adulthood and choose names that seem to be on the upswing. By the 1990s, of course, not many girls from the 1880s were still around, and that era’s names could seem fresh again. This search for youthfulness makes girls’ names more volatile — and increasingly so, as more statistics about names become available and parents grow more willing to experiment
Introduction: Following up on our blog discussions a year ago, I published a review of Charles Murray’s recent book, “Coming Apart,” for the journal Statistics, Politics, and Policy. I invited Murray to publish a response, and he did so. Here’s the abstract to my review : This article examines some claims made in a recent popular book of political sociology, with the intent not being to debunk any claims but rather to connect some important social and policy positions to statistical data on income, social class, and political attitudes. The thesis of Charles Murray’s book is that America’s upper and lower classes have become increasingly separate, with elites living more disciplined, orderly lives (characterized by marriage, work, and stable families) while being largely unaware of the lifestyles of the majority of Americans. I argue that some of Murray’s conclusions are sensitive to particular choices of whom to label as elite or upper-class. From my analysis of survey data, I see the big
7 0.59091121 688 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-30-Why it’s so relaxing to think about social issues
8 0.58755565 2196 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-03-One-way street fallacy again! in reporting of research on brothers and sisters
9 0.58643568 739 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-31-When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
10 0.58411026 1370 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-07-Duncan Watts and the Titanic
11 0.57823676 1391 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-25-A question about the Tiger Mom: what if she’d had boys instead of girls?
13 0.57767946 416 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-16-Is parenting a form of addiction?
14 0.57606578 707 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-12-Human nature can’t be changed (except when it can)
15 0.57083315 943 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-04-Flip it around
16 0.56992269 594 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-28-Behavioral economics doesn’t seem to have much to say about marriage
17 0.56269574 2338 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-19-My short career as a Freud expert
18 0.56018627 1836 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-02-Culture clash
19 0.55822909 1793 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-08-The Supreme Court meets the fallacy of the one-sided bet
20 0.55171728 664 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-16-Dilbert update: cartooning can give you the strength to open jars with your bare hands
topicId topicWeight
[(3, 0.016), (15, 0.043), (16, 0.035), (18, 0.05), (22, 0.017), (24, 0.034), (30, 0.031), (32, 0.221), (36, 0.018), (48, 0.018), (53, 0.031), (77, 0.04), (86, 0.073), (97, 0.017), (99, 0.226)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93546116 163 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-The fundamental attribution error: A literary example
Introduction: From “Judge Savage,” by Tim Parks: That evening, Daniel called Hilary’s parents. These people always disliked me, he knew. He had never understood if it was a racial thing, or whether they would have disliked any partner of Hilary’s. Very clever. Parks demonstrates Daniel’s blind spot–he can’t imagine that maybe Hilary’s parents hate him because of his unpleasant personality–but does it entirely from Daniel’s perspective. I wonder if this just came naturally to Parks, or whether he figured it out as a puzzle to solve–how to convey a blind spot from the perspective of the person looking and not noticing it–or whether Parks wasn’t thinking at all about this and it just happened. Considering the character Daniel’s psychology, I’d consider the above as an example of the so-called fundamental attribution error, in that he’s attributing Hilary’s parents dislike of him to situational factors rather than to his own personality. I’ll have more on “Judge Savage” later (on the topic
2 0.85332251 1885 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-06-Leahy Versus Albedoman and the Moneygoround, Part One
Introduction: Edward Wyatt reports : Now the Obama administration is cracking down on what many call patent trolls , shell companies that exist merely for the purpose of asserting that they should be paid . . . “The United States patent system is vital for our economic growth, job creation, and technological advance,” [Senator] Leahy said in a statement. “Unfortunately, misuse of low-quality patents through patent trolling has tarnished the system’s image.” There is some opposition: But some big software companies, including Microsoft, expressed dismay at some of the proposals, saying they could themselves stifle innovation. Microsoft . . . patent trolls . . . hmmm, where have we heard this connection before ? There is also some support for the bill: “These guys are terrorists,” said John Boswell, chief legal officer for SAS, a business software and services company, said at a panel discussion on Tuesday. SAS was cited in the White House report as an example of a company that has
3 0.83227563 1360 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-02-Helpful on happiness
Introduction: Following on our recent discussion of contradictory findings on happiness, David Austin writes: A pellucid discussion of happiness and happiness research is Fred Feldman, What is This Thing Called Happiness? (Oxford University Press, 2010). And here’s Feldman’s summary of his book.
4 0.82431608 1571 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-09-The anti-Bayesian moment and its passing
Introduction: Xian and I respond to the four discussants of our paper, “Not only defended but also applied”: The perceived absurdity of Bayesian inference.” Here’s the abstract of our rejoinder : Over the years we have often felt frustration, both at smug Bayesians—in particular, those who object to checking of the fit of model to data, either because all Bayesian models are held to be subjective and thus unquestioned (an odd combination indeed, but that is the subject of another article)—and angry anti-Bayesians who, as we wrote in our article, strain on the gnat of the prior distribution while swallowing the camel that is the likelihood. The present article arose from our memory of a particularly intemperate anti-Bayesian statement that appeared in Feller’s beautiful and classic book on probability theory. We felt that it was worth exploring the very extremeness of Feller’s words, along with similar anti-Bayesian remarks by others, in order to better understand the background underlying contr
5 0.79281473 701 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-07-Bechdel wasn’t kidding
Introduction: Regular readers of this blog know about the Bechdel test for movies: 1. It has to have at least two women in it 2. Who talk to each other 3. About something besides a man Amusing, huh? But I only really got the point the other day, when I was on a plane and passively watched parts of the in-flight movie. It was something I’d never heard of (of course) and it happened to be a chick flick–even without the soundtrack, it was clear that the main character was a woman and much of it was about her love life. But even this movie failed the Bechdel test miserably! I don’t even think it passed item #1 above, but if it did, it certainly failed #2. If even the chick flicks are failing the Bechdel test, then, yeah, we’re really in trouble. And don’t get me started on those old Warner Brothers cartoons. They’re great but they feature about as many female characters as the average WWII submarine. Sure, everybody knows this, but it’s still striking to think about just how unbalanced
6 0.77924556 1970 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-06-New words of 1917
7 0.7362445 790 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Blog in motion
8 0.73192382 1342 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-24-The Used TV Price is Too Damn High
9 0.72579926 2014 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-09-False memories and statistical analysis
10 0.72015625 146 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-14-The statistics and the science
11 0.71541899 1570 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-Poll aggregation and election forecasting
12 0.71312857 871 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-26-Be careful what you control for . . . you just might get it!
13 0.71153766 2122 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-03-Objects of the class “Lawrence Summers”: Arne Duncan edition
14 0.70929646 515 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-13-The Road to a B
15 0.70744187 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
16 0.70624459 1586 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-21-Readings for a two-week segment on Bayesian modeling?
18 0.703857 769 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-15-Mr. P by another name . . . is still great!
19 0.70288974 635 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Bayesian spam!
20 0.70271981 2289 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-11-“More research from the lunatic fringe”