andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-188 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I used this convenient site to create some images for a talk I’m preparing. (The competing headlines: “Beautiful parents have more daughters” vs. “No compelling evidence that beautiful parents are more or less likely to have daughters.” The latter gets cut off at “No compelling evidence that,” which actually works pretty well to demonstrate the sort of dull headline that would result if newspapers were to publish null results.)
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I used this convenient site to create some images for a talk I’m preparing. [sent-1, score-0.825]
2 (The competing headlines: “Beautiful parents have more daughters” vs. [sent-2, score-0.5]
3 “No compelling evidence that beautiful parents are more or less likely to have daughters. [sent-3, score-1.423]
4 ” The latter gets cut off at “No compelling evidence that,” which actually works pretty well to demonstrate the sort of dull headline that would result if newspapers were to publish null results. [sent-4, score-2.623]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('compelling', 0.392), ('beautiful', 0.353), ('parents', 0.317), ('dull', 0.25), ('daughters', 0.225), ('headlines', 0.225), ('newspapers', 0.204), ('evidence', 0.189), ('images', 0.187), ('competing', 0.183), ('headline', 0.18), ('convenient', 0.171), ('null', 0.167), ('latter', 0.166), ('cut', 0.164), ('site', 0.155), ('demonstrate', 0.145), ('create', 0.142), ('publish', 0.127), ('works', 0.119), ('gets', 0.115), ('result', 0.104), ('talk', 0.099), ('likely', 0.095), ('less', 0.077), ('pretty', 0.073), ('used', 0.071), ('sort', 0.068), ('actually', 0.065), ('well', 0.062), ('would', 0.033)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 188 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-06-Fake newspaper headlines
Introduction: I used this convenient site to create some images for a talk I’m preparing. (The competing headlines: “Beautiful parents have more daughters” vs. “No compelling evidence that beautiful parents are more or less likely to have daughters.” The latter gets cut off at “No compelling evidence that,” which actually works pretty well to demonstrate the sort of dull headline that would result if newspapers were to publish null results.)
2 0.24161129 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
3 0.19445351 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
4 0.12077969 1672 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-14-How do you think about the values in a confidence interval?
Introduction: Philip Jones writes: As an interested reader of your blog, I wondered if you might consider a blog entry sometime on the following question I posed on CrossValidated (StackExchange). I originally posed the question based on my uncertainty about 95% CIs: “Are all values within the 95% CI equally likely (probable), or are the values at the “tails” of the 95% CI less likely than those in the middle of the CI closer to the point estimate?” I posed this question based on discordant information I found at a couple of different web sources (I posted these sources in the body of the question). I received some interesting replies, and the replies were not unanimous, in fact there is some serious disagreement there! After seeing this disagreement, I naturally thought of you, and whether you might be able to clear this up. Please note I am not referring to credible intervals, but rather to the common medical journal reporting standard of confidence intervals. My response: First
Introduction: I remember in 4th grade or so, the teacher would give us a list of vocabulary words each week and we’d have to show we learned them by using each in a sentence. We quickly got bored and decided to do the assignment by writing a single sentence using all ten words. (Which the teacher hated, of course.) The above headline is in that spirit, combining blog posts rather than vocabulary words. But that only uses two of the entries. To really do the job, I’d need to throw in bivariate associations, ecological fallacies, high-dimensional feature selection, statistical significance, the suddenly unpopular name Hilary, snotty reviewers, the contagion of obesity, and milk-related spam. Or we could bring in some of the all-time favorites, such as Bayesians, economists, Finland, beautiful parents and their daughters, goofy graphics, red and blue states, essentialism in children’s reasoning, chess running, and zombies. Putting 8 of these in a single sentence (along with Glenn Hubbard
6 0.097902566 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
7 0.094726607 416 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-16-Is parenting a form of addiction?
8 0.088715881 1941 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-16-Priors
9 0.08769659 2295 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-18-One-tailed or two-tailed?
10 0.084791087 2149 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-26-Statistical evidence for revised standards
11 0.083811089 542 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-Homework and treatment levels
13 0.08258944 2196 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-03-One-way street fallacy again! in reporting of research on brothers and sisters
14 0.082583919 583 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-21-An interesting assignment for statistical graphics
15 0.08233422 1305 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-07-Happy news on happiness; what can we believe?
16 0.081743747 2023 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-14-On blogging
17 0.080498032 1862 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-18-uuuuuuuuuuuuugly
18 0.079609498 303 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-28-“Genomics” vs. genetics
20 0.077061586 1604 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-An epithet I can live with
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.075), (1, -0.03), (2, 0.002), (3, -0.034), (4, -0.014), (5, -0.036), (6, 0.016), (7, 0.014), (8, -0.044), (9, -0.053), (10, -0.042), (11, 0.013), (12, 0.003), (13, -0.029), (14, 0.032), (15, -0.022), (16, 0.026), (17, -0.019), (18, 0.0), (19, 0.017), (20, -0.029), (21, -0.025), (22, 0.011), (23, -0.035), (24, 0.038), (25, -0.029), (26, -0.03), (27, -0.022), (28, 0.013), (29, -0.013), (30, -0.0), (31, -0.008), (32, 0.08), (33, 0.021), (34, -0.012), (35, 0.038), (36, 0.019), (37, 0.02), (38, -0.004), (39, -0.004), (40, -0.045), (41, 0.014), (42, 0.06), (43, -0.004), (44, 0.016), (45, 0.054), (46, 0.013), (47, 0.004), (48, 0.104), (49, 0.056)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97865021 188 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-06-Fake newspaper headlines
Introduction: I used this convenient site to create some images for a talk I’m preparing. (The competing headlines: “Beautiful parents have more daughters” vs. “No compelling evidence that beautiful parents are more or less likely to have daughters.” The latter gets cut off at “No compelling evidence that,” which actually works pretty well to demonstrate the sort of dull headline that would result if newspapers were to publish null results.)
2 0.66169536 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
3 0.6253534 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
4 0.58515596 2196 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-03-One-way street fallacy again! in reporting of research on brothers and sisters
Introduction: There’s something satisfying about seeing the same error being made by commentators on the left and the right. In this case, we’re talking about the one-way street fallacy , which is the implicit assumption of unidirectionality in a setting that actually has underlying symmetry. 1. A month or so ago we reported on an op-ed by conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who was discussing recent research exemplified by the headline, “Study: Having daughters makes parents more likely to be Republican.” Douthat wrote all about different effects of having girls, without realizing that the study was comparing parents of girls to parents of boys. He just as well could have talked about the effects of having sons, and how that is associated with voting for Democrats (according to the study). But he did not do so; he was implicitly considering boy children to be the default. 2. A couple days ago, liberal NYT columnist Charles Blow ( link from commenter Steve Sailer) repo
5 0.55002242 1583 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-19-I can’t read this interview with me
Introduction: From Alexandr Grigoryev: “Америка: «красная», «синяя» и «пурпурная».” Apparently my name is Эндрю Гелман. I had no idea that the Voice of America even existed anymore!
6 0.53928518 1249 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-06-Thinking seriously about social science research
8 0.52677798 739 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-31-When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
9 0.52238935 561 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-06-Poverty, educational performance – and can be done about it
10 0.51355928 163 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-The fundamental attribution error: A literary example
11 0.49694404 2212 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-15-Mary, Mary, why ya buggin
12 0.49415958 2333 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-13-Personally, I’d rather go with Teragram
13 0.48140678 1793 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-08-The Supreme Court meets the fallacy of the one-sided bet
14 0.4813225 1305 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-07-Happy news on happiness; what can we believe?
15 0.47088507 2065 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-Cool dynamic demographic maps provide beautiful illustration of Chris Rock effect
16 0.46765316 304 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-Data visualization marathon
17 0.46639132 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
18 0.4658353 1053 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-11-This one is so dumb it makes me want to barf
19 0.4628236 720 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Baby name wizards
20 0.46159744 1643 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-29-Sexism in science (as elsewhere)
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.033), (16, 0.072), (21, 0.03), (24, 0.175), (66, 0.398), (86, 0.031), (99, 0.104)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.92286211 188 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-06-Fake newspaper headlines
Introduction: I used this convenient site to create some images for a talk I’m preparing. (The competing headlines: “Beautiful parents have more daughters” vs. “No compelling evidence that beautiful parents are more or less likely to have daughters.” The latter gets cut off at “No compelling evidence that,” which actually works pretty well to demonstrate the sort of dull headline that would result if newspapers were to publish null results.)
2 0.7533406 1192 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-02-These people totally don’t know what Chance magazine is all about
Introduction: I received the following unsolicited email, subject line “Chance Magazine – Comedy Showcase”: Hi Andrew, Hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to let you know that we will be putting on an industry showcase at the brand new Laughing Devil Comedy Club (4738 Vernon Blvd. Long Island City) on Thursday, February 9th at 8:00 PM. If you’re unfamiliar, it’s one stop on the 7 train from Grand Central. Following the showcase, the club will stay open for an industry mingle/happy hour with drink specials and all the business card exchanging you can hope for. This showcase will feature 9 of our best: Steve Hofstetter’s latest album hit #1 in the world. He’ll be hosting Collin Moulton (Showtime Half Hour Special), Tony Deyo (Aspen Comedy Festival), Tom Simmons (Winner of the SF International Comedy Festival), Marc Ryan (Host of Mudslingers), Mike Trainor (TruTV), Jessi Campbell (CMT), Danny Browning (Bob & Tom), and Joe Zimmerman (Sirius/XM). I would love for you (and anyone you’d like to
3 0.73452711 680 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-26-My talk at Berkeley on Wednesday
Introduction: Something on Applied Bayesian Statistics April 27, 4:10-5 p.m., 1011 Evans Hall I will deliver one of the following three talks: 1. Of beauty, sex, and power: Statistical challenges in estimating small effects 2. Why we (usually) don’t worry about multiple comparisons 3. Parameterization and Bayesian modeling Whoever shows up on time to the seminar gets to vote, and I’ll give the talk that gets the most votes.
4 0.72112072 1049 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-09-Today in the sister blog
Introduction: Everybody hates Jon Voter decision making with third party candidates Cognitive Factors in Bilingual Children’s Pragmatic Language Skills
5 0.7135222 1439 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-01-A book with a bunch of simple graphs
Introduction: Howard Friedman sent me a new book, The Measure of a Nation, subtitled How to Regain America’s Competitive Edge and Boost Our Global Standing. Without commenting on the substance of Friedman’s recommendations, I’d like to endorse his strategy of presentation, which is to display graph after graph after graph showing the same message over and over again, which is that the U.S. is outperformed by various other countries (mostly in Europe) on a variety of measures. These aren’t graphs I would ever make—they are scatterplots in which the x-axis conveys no information. But they have the advantage of repetition: once you figure out how to read one of the graphs, you can read the others easily. Here’s an example which I found from a quick Google: I can’t actually figure out what is happening on the x-axis, nor do I understand the “star, middle child, dog” thing. But I like the use of graphics. Lots more fun than bullet points. Seriously. P.S. Just to be clear: I am not trying
6 0.60369992 536 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-24-Trends in partisanship by state
7 0.58841699 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
8 0.57406968 1322 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-Question 5 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
9 0.5725022 1200 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-06-Some economists are skeptical about microfoundations
10 0.56679618 204 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Sloppily-written slam on moderately celebrated writers is amusing nonetheless
11 0.55221474 674 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-21-Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo
12 0.54850161 474 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-18-The kind of frustration we could all use more of
13 0.54712188 1010 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-14-“Free energy” and economic resources
14 0.51982027 679 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-25-My talk at Stanford on Tuesday
15 0.51375532 2262 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-23-Win probabilities during a sporting event
16 0.49798781 1271 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Education could use some systematic evaluation
17 0.49136743 2023 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-14-On blogging
18 0.49117982 2317 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-04-Honored oldsters write about statistics