andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-339 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Meow! Wow–economists are under a lot of pressure. Not only do they have to keep publishing after they get tenure; they have to be funny, too! It’s a lot easier in statistics and political science. Nobody expects us to be funny, so any little witticism always gets a big laugh. P.S. I think no one will deny that Levitt has a sense of humor. For example, he ran this item with a straight face, relaying to NYT readers in October 2008 that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” P.P.S. I think this will keep me safe for awhile.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Not only do they have to keep publishing after they get tenure; they have to be funny, too! [sent-3, score-0.399]
2 It’s a lot easier in statistics and political science. [sent-4, score-0.421]
3 Nobody expects us to be funny, so any little witticism always gets a big laugh. [sent-5, score-0.994]
4 I think no one will deny that Levitt has a sense of humor. [sent-8, score-0.374]
5 For example, he ran this item with a straight face, relaying to NYT readers in October 2008 that “the current unemployment rate of 6. [sent-9, score-1.289]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('relaying', 0.299), ('witticism', 0.299), ('funny', 0.296), ('expects', 0.26), ('keep', 0.211), ('deny', 0.208), ('tenure', 0.204), ('wow', 0.194), ('october', 0.192), ('nyt', 0.18), ('levitt', 0.179), ('safe', 0.177), ('unemployment', 0.173), ('straight', 0.164), ('ran', 0.16), ('item', 0.157), ('face', 0.155), ('easier', 0.146), ('publishing', 0.146), ('awhile', 0.144), ('percent', 0.136), ('nobody', 0.133), ('lot', 0.132), ('economists', 0.127), ('rate', 0.118), ('gets', 0.116), ('current', 0.111), ('readers', 0.107), ('little', 0.088), ('political', 0.08), ('big', 0.079), ('always', 0.077), ('us', 0.075), ('sense', 0.071), ('think', 0.065), ('statistics', 0.063), ('example', 0.05), ('get', 0.042), ('one', 0.03)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 339 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Battle of the NYT opinion-page economists
Introduction: Meow! Wow–economists are under a lot of pressure. Not only do they have to keep publishing after they get tenure; they have to be funny, too! It’s a lot easier in statistics and political science. Nobody expects us to be funny, so any little witticism always gets a big laugh. P.S. I think no one will deny that Levitt has a sense of humor. For example, he ran this item with a straight face, relaying to NYT readers in October 2008 that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” P.P.S. I think this will keep me safe for awhile.
Introduction: In the interview we discussed a couple months ago, Steven Levitt said: I [Levitt] voted for Obama [in 2008] because I wanted to tell my grandchildren that I voted for Obama. And I thought that he would be the greatest president in history. This surprised me. I’d assumed Levitt was a McCain supporter! Why? Because in October, 2008, he wrote that he “loved” the claim by conservative University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” I’d read that at the time, perhaps incorrectly, as Mulligan making an election-season pitch that the economy was doing just fine (Mulligan: “if you are not employed by the financial industry (94 percent of you are not), don’t worry”) hence implicitly an argument for a Republican vote in that year (given the usual rules of retrospective voting that the incumbent party gets punished by a poor economy). And I correspondingly (and, it seems, incorrectly) read Levitt’s endorsement of Mu
3 0.15906885 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 0.15133898 2070 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-20-The institution of tenure
Introduction: Rohin Dhar writes: The Priceonomics blog is doing a feature where we ask a few economists what they think of the the institution of tenure. If you’d be interested in participating, I’d love to get your response. As an economist, what do you think of tenure? Should it be abolished / kept / modified? My reply: Just to be clear, I’m assuming that when you say “tenure,” you’re talking about lifetime employment for college professors such as myself. I’m actually a political scientist, not an economist. So rather than giving my opinion, I’ll say what I think an economist might say. I think an economist could say one of two things: Economist as anthropologist would say: Tenure is decided by independent institutions acting freely. If they choose to offer tenure, they will have good reasons, and it is not part of an economist’s job to second-guess individual decisions. Economist as McKinsey consultant would say: Tenure can be evaluated based on a cost-benefit analysis. How
Introduction: Steven Levitt writes :. Diamond often would fall asleep in seminars, often for large chunks of time. What was amazing, however, is that he would open his eyes and then make by far the most insightful comment of the entire seminar! Now that we have n=2 [see the first part of the title of this blog entry], I’m wondering . . . maybe this sort of thing is more common than Levitt and I had realized. P.S. Levitt also writes: The one thing that puzzles me [Levitt] is why in the world would he want to be on the Board of the Federal Reserve? One thing economists just don’t understand are people’s preferences. To get meta here for a moment . . . just as Levitt can’t understand Diamond’s preferences, I find it extremely difficult to understand that Levitt is puzzled by Diamond’s desire to serve on the Federal Reserve, It’s obvious, no? Diamond has expertise on macroeconomics and, I assume, some strong and well-informed opinions on monetary policy; the Federal Reserve determ
6 0.11604647 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
8 0.108822 1028 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-26-Tenure lets you handle students who cheat
10 0.094078705 1491 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-10-Update on Levitt paper on child car seats
11 0.093774021 1456 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-13-Macro, micro, and conflicts of interest
12 0.093539238 187 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-05-Update on state size and governors’ popularity
13 0.089424983 304 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-Data visualization marathon
14 0.087371379 202 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Job openings in multilevel modeling in Bristol, England
15 0.086856082 1060 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-15-Freakonomics: What went wrong?
16 0.081545293 182 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-Nebraska never looked so appealing: anatomy of a zombie attack. Oops, I mean a recession.
17 0.079365522 1122 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-16-“Groundbreaking or Definitive? Journals Need to Pick One”
18 0.079245232 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
20 0.074253149 633 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-“The New Tyranny: Carbon Monoxide Detectors?”
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.097), (1, -0.066), (2, 0.0), (3, 0.024), (4, -0.034), (5, -0.012), (6, 0.027), (7, -0.001), (8, 0.01), (9, 0.037), (10, -0.034), (11, -0.012), (12, -0.032), (13, 0.009), (14, -0.05), (15, -0.021), (16, -0.025), (17, 0.067), (18, -0.007), (19, 0.042), (20, 0.001), (21, 0.016), (22, 0.022), (23, 0.018), (24, -0.003), (25, -0.109), (26, -0.016), (27, -0.006), (28, 0.04), (29, -0.033), (30, 0.043), (31, 0.036), (32, -0.045), (33, -0.004), (34, -0.057), (35, 0.044), (36, -0.009), (37, 0.028), (38, -0.016), (39, 0.002), (40, 0.041), (41, -0.036), (42, -0.012), (43, -0.0), (44, -0.0), (45, -0.004), (46, 0.005), (47, 0.004), (48, 0.013), (49, -0.013)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93134993 339 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Battle of the NYT opinion-page economists
Introduction: Meow! Wow–economists are under a lot of pressure. Not only do they have to keep publishing after they get tenure; they have to be funny, too! It’s a lot easier in statistics and political science. Nobody expects us to be funny, so any little witticism always gets a big laugh. P.S. I think no one will deny that Levitt has a sense of humor. For example, he ran this item with a straight face, relaying to NYT readers in October 2008 that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” P.P.S. I think this will keep me safe for awhile.
Introduction: In the interview we discussed a couple months ago, Steven Levitt said: I [Levitt] voted for Obama [in 2008] because I wanted to tell my grandchildren that I voted for Obama. And I thought that he would be the greatest president in history. This surprised me. I’d assumed Levitt was a McCain supporter! Why? Because in October, 2008, he wrote that he “loved” the claim by conservative University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” I’d read that at the time, perhaps incorrectly, as Mulligan making an election-season pitch that the economy was doing just fine (Mulligan: “if you are not employed by the financial industry (94 percent of you are not), don’t worry”) hence implicitly an argument for a Republican vote in that year (given the usual rules of retrospective voting that the incumbent party gets punished by a poor economy). And I correspondingly (and, it seems, incorrectly) read Levitt’s endorsement of Mu
Introduction: Steven Levitt writes :. Diamond often would fall asleep in seminars, often for large chunks of time. What was amazing, however, is that he would open his eyes and then make by far the most insightful comment of the entire seminar! Now that we have n=2 [see the first part of the title of this blog entry], I’m wondering . . . maybe this sort of thing is more common than Levitt and I had realized. P.S. Levitt also writes: The one thing that puzzles me [Levitt] is why in the world would he want to be on the Board of the Federal Reserve? One thing economists just don’t understand are people’s preferences. To get meta here for a moment . . . just as Levitt can’t understand Diamond’s preferences, I find it extremely difficult to understand that Levitt is puzzled by Diamond’s desire to serve on the Federal Reserve, It’s obvious, no? Diamond has expertise on macroeconomics and, I assume, some strong and well-informed opinions on monetary policy; the Federal Reserve determ
4 0.82920974 1456 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-13-Macro, micro, and conflicts of interest
Introduction: Jeff points me to this and this . There seems to be a perception that “economists, the people who will cooly explain why people will be completely corrupt if the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost, see themselves as being completely not corrupt” (according to Atrios) and that “the economists who have decided to lend their names to the [Romney] campaign have been caught up in this culture of fraud” (according to Krugman). The bloggers above are talking about macro, and perhaps they’re right that macroeconomists see themselves as uncorruptible and above it all. As with political science, the key parts of macroeconomics are about what is good for the world (or, at least, what is good for the country), and it’s hard to do this well from a level of complete cynicism. I’m no expert on macroeconomics, but my general impression is that, Marxists aside, macroeconomists tend to assume shared goals. Micro, though, that’s completely different. These dudes are happy to admit to t
5 0.80894375 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
Introduction: Responding to journalist Elizabeth Kolbert’s negative review of Freakonomics 2 in the New Yorker, Stephen Dubner writes , that, although they do not have any training in climate science, it’s also the case that: Neither of us [Levitt and Dubner] were Ku Klux Klan members either, or sumo wrestlers or Realtors or abortion providers or schoolteachers or even pimps. And yet somehow we managed to write about all that without any horse dung (well, not much at least) flying our way. But Levitt is a schoolteacher (at the University of Chicago)! And, of course, you don’t have to be a sumo wrestler to be (some kind of an) expert on sumo wrestling, nor do you have to teach in the K-12 system to be an expert in education, nor do you have to provide abortions to be an expert on abortion, etc. And Levitt has had quite a bit of horse dung thrown at him for the abortion research. The connection is that abortion and climate change matter to a lot of people, while sumo wrestling and pimps and
6 0.79529059 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
7 0.77309519 1632 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-20-Who exactly are those silly academics who aren’t as smart as a Vegas bookie?
8 0.71775007 1491 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-10-Update on Levitt paper on child car seats
10 0.68181407 1180 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-22-I’m officially no longer a “rogue”
11 0.6687206 1060 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-15-Freakonomics: What went wrong?
12 0.64686161 13 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-30-Things I learned from the Mickey Kaus for Senate campaign
13 0.64407569 809 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-19-“One of the easiest ways to differentiate an economist from almost anyone else in society”
14 0.61916453 1108 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-09-Blogging, polemical and otherwise
15 0.61449695 1099 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Approaching harmonic convergence
16 0.60653561 1692 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Freakonomics Experiments
17 0.60370141 943 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-04-Flip it around
18 0.60102379 2070 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-20-The institution of tenure
19 0.58195674 1525 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-08-Ethical standards in different data communities
20 0.57089961 353 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-19-The violent crime rate was about 75% higher in Detroit than in Minneapolis in 2009
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.059), (16, 0.115), (24, 0.019), (55, 0.044), (61, 0.033), (62, 0.16), (76, 0.031), (84, 0.028), (99, 0.376)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96296149 339 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Battle of the NYT opinion-page economists
Introduction: Meow! Wow–economists are under a lot of pressure. Not only do they have to keep publishing after they get tenure; they have to be funny, too! It’s a lot easier in statistics and political science. Nobody expects us to be funny, so any little witticism always gets a big laugh. P.S. I think no one will deny that Levitt has a sense of humor. For example, he ran this item with a straight face, relaying to NYT readers in October 2008 that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” P.P.S. I think this will keep me safe for awhile.
2 0.93775594 704 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-10-Multiple imputation and multilevel analysis
Introduction: Robert Birkelbach: I am writing my Bachelor Thesis in which I want to assess the reading competencies of German elementary school children using the PIRLS2006 data. My levels are classrooms and the individuals. However, my dependent variable is a multiple imputed (m=5) reading test. The problem I have is, that I do not know, whether I can just calculate 5 linear multilevel models and then average all the results (the coefficients, standard deviation, bic, intra class correlation, R2, t-statistics, p-values etc) or if I need different formulas for integrating the results of the five models into one because it is a multilevel analysis? Do you think there’s a better way in solving my problem? I would greatly appreciate if you could help me with a problem regarding my analysis — I am quite a newbie to multilevel modeling and especially to multiple imputation. Also: Is it okay to use frequentist models when the multiple imputation was done bayesian? Would the different philosophies of sc
3 0.93764603 986 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-01-MacKay update: where 12 comes from
Introduction: In reply to my question , David MacKay writes: You said that can imagine rounding up 9 to 10 – which would be elegant if we worked in base 10. But in the UK we haven’t switched to base 10 yet, we still work in dozens and grosses. (One gross = 12^2 = 144.) So I was taught (by John Skilling, probably) “a dozen samples are plenty”. Probably in an earlier draft of the book in 2001 I said “a dozen”, rather than “12″. Then some feedbacker may have written and said “I don’t know what a dozen is”; so then I sacrificed elegant language and replaced “dozen” by “12″, which leads to your mystification. PS – please send the winner of your competition a free copy of my other book ( sewtha ) too, from me. PPS I see that Mikkel Schmidt [in your comments] has diligently found the correct answer, which I guessed above. I suggest you award the prizes to him. OK, we’re just giving away books here! P.S. See here for my review of MacKay’s book on sustainable energy.
4 0.91347492 260 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-07-QB2
Introduction: Dave Berri writes: Saw you had a post on the research I did with Rob Simmons on the NFL draft. I have attached the article. This article has not officially been published, so please don’t post this on-line. The post you linked to states the following: “On his blog, Berri says he restricts the analysis to QBs who have played more than 500 downs, or for 5 years. He also looks at per-play statistics, like touchdowns per game, to counter what he considers an opportunity bias.” Two points: First of all, we did not look at touchdowns per game (that is not a per play stat). More importantly — as this post indicates — we did far more than just look at data after five years. We did mention the five year result, but directly below that discussion (and I mean, directly below), the following sentences appear. Our data set runs from 1970 to 2007 (adjustments were made for how performance changed over time). We also looked at career performance after 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 years
5 0.91128218 715 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-16-“It doesn’t matter if you believe in God. What matters is if God believes in you.”
Introduction: Mark Chaves sent me this great article on religion and religious practice: After reading a book or article in the scientific study of religion, I [Chaves] wonder if you ever find yourself thinking, “I just don’t believe it.” I have this experience uncomfortably often, and I think it’s because of a pervasive problem in the scientific study of religion. I want to describe that problem and how to overcome it. The problem is illustrated in a story told by Meyer Fortes. He once asked a rainmaker in a native culture he was studying to perform the rainmaking ceremony for him. The rainmaker refused, replying: “Don’t be a fool, whoever makes a rain-making ceremony in the dry season?” The problem is illustrated in a different way in a story told by Jay Demerath. He was in Israel, visiting friends for a Sabbath dinner. The man of the house, a conservative rabbi, stopped in the middle of chanting the prayers to say cheerfully: “You know, we don’t believe in any of this. But then in Judai
6 0.90952837 1389 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-23-Larry Wasserman’s statistics blog
7 0.90548092 2070 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-20-The institution of tenure
8 0.90500891 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
9 0.9043892 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
10 0.90434134 348 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-17-Joanne Gowa scooped me by 22 years in my criticism of Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation
11 0.90427089 1554 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-31-It not necessary that Bayesian methods conform to the likelihood principle
12 0.90279692 2131 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-12-My talk at Leuven, Sat 14 Dec
13 0.90198141 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
14 0.90161836 371 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-26-Musical chairs in econ journals
15 0.89981574 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
16 0.89935917 1243 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-03-Don’t do the King’s Gambit
17 0.89906543 1652 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-03-“The Case for Inductive Theory Building”
18 0.89649737 54 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-27-Hype about conditional probability puzzles
19 0.89583445 452 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-06-Followup questions
20 0.89492416 909 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-7 steps to successful infographics