andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-483 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: A link from Tyler Cowen led me to this long blog article by Razib Khan, discussing some recent genetic findings on human origins in the context of the past twenty-five years of research and popularization of science. I don’t know much about human origins (beyond my ooh-that’s-cool reactions to exhibits at the Natural History Museum, my general statistician’s skepticism at various over-the-top claims I’ve heard over the years about “mitochondrial Eve” and the like, and various bits I’ve read over the years regarding when people came over to Australia, America, etc.), but what particularly interested me about Khan’s article was his discussion about the various controversies among scientists, his own reactions when reading and thinking about these issues as they were happening (Khan was a student at the time), and the interaction between science and political ideology. There’s a limit to how far you can go with this sort of cultural criticism of science, and Khan realizes this
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 A link from Tyler Cowen led me to this long blog article by Razib Khan, discussing some recent genetic findings on human origins in the context of the past twenty-five years of research and popularization of science. [sent-1, score-0.47]
2 There’s a limit to how far you can go with this sort of cultural criticism of science, and Khan realizes this: he goes back and forth between stories about scientists fighting each other, to his own reflections, to the scientific findings. [sent-4, score-0.274]
3 I’m not personally so interested in the details of human origins, but these details are needed to back up Khan’s sociological comments. [sent-5, score-0.234]
4 It’s unsurprising that political ideology and personality clashes are inextricably woven into social science. [sent-6, score-0.48]
5 The most notorious bit might be journalist Paul Johnson’s book, several years ago, arguing that left-wing intellectuals (or, as Johnson called them, “intellectuals”) were all a bunch of perverts. [sent-8, score-0.261]
6 Or pundits making oh-so-confident but data-free assertions , backed up by editors who don’t know any better. [sent-9, score-0.204]
7 But ideology comes up in biology as well (even beyond this sort of thing). [sent-10, score-0.32]
8 I came across this a few years ago when reading a book, Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond, by Ullica Segerstrale, which had been recommended to me by statistician/biologist Bob O’Hara. [sent-11, score-0.253]
9 My reaction to Segerstrale’s book was that her description of the interaction between science and political ideology represented only a small part of the story, even in biology. [sent-12, score-0.564]
10 Margaret Mead,” without noting everything else that was going on. [sent-15, score-0.061]
11 (To put it another way, lots more people are learning about statistics from this sort of article on Slate magazine than from the blog you’re reading right now. [sent-18, score-0.159]
12 ) Sometimes a field gets lucky in its popularizers–I’m pretty happy with the influence of Nate Silver on popular understanding of statistics and political science, for example–but in any case we can’t ignore them. [sent-19, score-0.197]
13 In the second paragraph above, I was about to write “fierce controversies,” but then I realized this would be ugly journalistese (along the lines of phrases such as “the lion’s share”)–the sort of thing that people write but would never say. [sent-22, score-0.077]
14 I’m glad I caught that one before it came out of my fingers. [sent-26, score-0.079]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('khan', 0.507), ('segerstrale', 0.278), ('origins', 0.2), ('controversies', 0.192), ('fierce', 0.169), ('intellectuals', 0.169), ('science', 0.163), ('ideology', 0.15), ('popular', 0.106), ('johnson', 0.105), ('human', 0.102), ('interaction', 0.094), ('reactions', 0.094), ('beyond', 0.093), ('years', 0.092), ('political', 0.091), ('woven', 0.084), ('inextricably', 0.084), ('popularizers', 0.084), ('sociobiology', 0.084), ('reading', 0.082), ('fingers', 0.08), ('razib', 0.08), ('assertions', 0.08), ('marx', 0.08), ('mead', 0.08), ('came', 0.079), ('various', 0.079), ('sort', 0.077), ('popularization', 0.076), ('eve', 0.076), ('exhibits', 0.076), ('margaret', 0.076), ('nurture', 0.074), ('galbraith', 0.074), ('unsurprising', 0.071), ('australia', 0.071), ('realizes', 0.071), ('museum', 0.067), ('details', 0.066), ('book', 0.066), ('iq', 0.064), ('defenders', 0.064), ('scientists', 0.064), ('pundits', 0.063), ('fighting', 0.062), ('adam', 0.061), ('backed', 0.061), ('noting', 0.061), ('reflections', 0.06)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 483 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-23-Science, ideology, and human origins
Introduction: A link from Tyler Cowen led me to this long blog article by Razib Khan, discussing some recent genetic findings on human origins in the context of the past twenty-five years of research and popularization of science. I don’t know much about human origins (beyond my ooh-that’s-cool reactions to exhibits at the Natural History Museum, my general statistician’s skepticism at various over-the-top claims I’ve heard over the years about “mitochondrial Eve” and the like, and various bits I’ve read over the years regarding when people came over to Australia, America, etc.), but what particularly interested me about Khan’s article was his discussion about the various controversies among scientists, his own reactions when reading and thinking about these issues as they were happening (Khan was a student at the time), and the interaction between science and political ideology. There’s a limit to how far you can go with this sort of cultural criticism of science, and Khan realizes this
2 0.11364816 1634 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-21-Two reviews of Nate Silver’s new book, from Kaiser Fung and Cathy O’Neil
Introduction: People keep asking me what I think of Nate’s book, and I keep replying that, as a blogger, I’m spoiled. I’m so used to getting books for free that I wouldn’t go out and buy a book just for the purpose of reviewing it. (That reminds me that I should post reviews of some of those books I’ve received in the mail over the past few months.) I have, however, encountered a couple of reviews of The Signal and the Noise so I thought I’d pass them on to you. Both these reviews are by statisticians / data scientists who work here in NYC in the non-academic “real world” so in that sense they are perhaps better situated than me to review the book (also, they have not collaborated with Nate so they have no conflict of interest). Kaiser Fung gives a positive review : It is in the subtitle—“why so many predictions fail – but some don’t”—that one learns the core philosophy of Silver: he is most concerned with the honest evaluation of the performance of predictive models. The failure to look
3 0.11118884 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
Introduction: I’m postponing today’s scheduled post (“Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models”) to continue the lively discussion from yesterday, What if I were to stop publishing in journals? . An example: my papers with Basbøll Thomas Basbøll and I got into a long discussion on our blogs about business school professor Karl Weick and other cases of plagiarism copying text without attribution. We felt it useful to take our ideas to the next level and write them up as a manuscript, which ended up being logical to split into two papers. At that point I put some effort into getting these papers published, which I eventually did: To throw away data: Plagiarism as a statistical crime went into American Scientist and When do stories work? Evidence and illustration in the social sciences will appear in Sociological Methods and Research. The second paper, in particular, took some effort to place; I got some advice from colleagues in sociology as to where
4 0.10835813 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
Introduction: An interview with me from 2012 : You’re a statistician and wrote a book, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State , looking at why Americans vote the way they do. In an election year I think it would be a good time to revisit that question, not just for people in the US, but anyone around the world who wants to understand the realities – rather than the stereotypes – of how Americans vote. I regret the title I gave my book. I was too greedy. I wanted it to be an airport bestseller because I figured there were millions of people who are interested in politics and some subset of them are always looking at the statistics. It’s got a very grabby title and as a result people underestimated the content. They thought it was a popularisation of my work, or, at best, an expansion of an article we’d written. But it had tons of original material. If I’d given it a more serious, political science-y title, then all sorts of people would have wanted to read it, because they would
5 0.10343354 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
Introduction: I’ve earlier written that science is science communication —that is, the act of communicating scientific ideas and findings to ourselves and others is itself a central part of science. My point was to push against a conventional separation between the act of science and the act of communication, the idea that science is done by scientists and communication is done by communicators. It’s a rare bit of science that does not include communication as part of it. As a scientist and science communicator myself, I’m particularly sensitive to devaluing of communication. (For example, Bayesian Data Analysis is full of original research that was done in order to communicate; or, to put it another way, we often think we understand a scientific idea, but once we try to communicate it, we recognize gaps in our understanding that motivate further research.) I once saw the following on one of those inspirational-sayings-for-every-day desk calendars: “To have ideas is to gather flowers. To thin
6 0.099560723 1994 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-“The comment section is open, but I’m not going to read them”
7 0.094280951 600 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-04-“Social Psychologists Detect Liberal Bias Within”
8 0.092340976 2106 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-19-More on “data science” and “statistics”
9 0.088771001 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
10 0.087779105 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
11 0.084841184 703 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-10-Bringing Causal Models Into the Mainstream
12 0.084786661 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
13 0.083683111 719 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-19-Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer)
14 0.08366736 604 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-08-More on the missing conservative psychology researchers
15 0.08269389 2084 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-01-Doing Data Science: What’s it all about?
16 0.08239954 1695 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-28-Economists argue about Bayes
18 0.079266861 1043 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-Krugman disses Hayek as “being almost entirely about politics rather than economics”
19 0.079096913 878 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-Infovis, infographics, and data visualization: Where I’m coming from, and where I’d like to go
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.183), (1, -0.096), (2, -0.044), (3, 0.017), (4, -0.065), (5, 0.012), (6, -0.003), (7, -0.013), (8, 0.024), (9, 0.059), (10, -0.004), (11, 0.003), (12, 0.002), (13, 0.007), (14, 0.021), (15, 0.005), (16, -0.079), (17, 0.011), (18, 0.02), (19, -0.049), (20, 0.034), (21, -0.032), (22, -0.059), (23, -0.011), (24, 0.021), (25, 0.019), (26, 0.039), (27, 0.03), (28, -0.035), (29, -0.011), (30, -0.036), (31, 0.041), (32, -0.018), (33, -0.04), (34, 0.009), (35, 0.024), (36, 0.008), (37, 0.016), (38, 0.056), (39, -0.056), (40, -0.031), (41, 0.007), (42, 0.03), (43, -0.024), (44, -0.033), (45, -0.028), (46, 0.0), (47, 0.028), (48, 0.037), (49, 0.038)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97467506 483 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-23-Science, ideology, and human origins
Introduction: A link from Tyler Cowen led me to this long blog article by Razib Khan, discussing some recent genetic findings on human origins in the context of the past twenty-five years of research and popularization of science. I don’t know much about human origins (beyond my ooh-that’s-cool reactions to exhibits at the Natural History Museum, my general statistician’s skepticism at various over-the-top claims I’ve heard over the years about “mitochondrial Eve” and the like, and various bits I’ve read over the years regarding when people came over to Australia, America, etc.), but what particularly interested me about Khan’s article was his discussion about the various controversies among scientists, his own reactions when reading and thinking about these issues as they were happening (Khan was a student at the time), and the interaction between science and political ideology. There’s a limit to how far you can go with this sort of cultural criticism of science, and Khan realizes this
2 0.8126421 2327 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-09-Nicholas Wade and the paradox of racism
Introduction: The paradox of racism is that at any given moment, the racism of the day seems reasonable and very possibly true, but the racism of the past always seems so ridiculous. I’ve been thinking about this for a few months ever since receiving in the mail a new book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History,” by New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade. Here’s what I wrote in my review of this book for Slate : The word “inequality” does not appear in the book’s index, but what Wade is offering is essentially a theory of economic and social inequality, explaining systematic racial differences in prosperity based on a combination of innate traits (“the disinclination to save in tribal societies is linked to a strong propensity for immediate consumption”) and genetic adaptation to political and social institutions (arguing, for example, that generations of centralized rule have effected a selection pressure for Chinese to be accepting of authority). Wade is clearly in
Introduction: Steven Hayward at the American Enterprise Institute wrote an article , sure to attract the attention of people such as myself, entitled, “The irrelevance of modern political science,” in which he discusses some silly-sounding papers presented at the recent American Political Science Association and then moves to a larger critique of quantitative political science: I [Hayward] have often taken a random article from the American Political Science Review, which resembles a mathematical journal on most of its pages, and asked students if they can envision this method providing the mathematical formula that will deliver peace in the Middle East. Even the dullest students usually grasp the point without difficulty. At the sister blog, John Sides discusses and dismisses Hayward’s arguments, point on that, among other things, political science might very well be useful even if it doesn’t deliver peace in the Middle East. After all, the U.S. Army didn’t deliver peace in the Midd
4 0.77162266 1515 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-29-Jost Haidt
Introduction: Research psychologist John Jost reviews the recent book, “The Righteous Mind,” by research psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Some of my thoughts on Haidt’s book are here . And here’s some of Jost’s review: Haidt’s book is creative, interesting, and provocative. . . . The book shines a new light on moral psychology and presents a bold, confrontational message. From a scientific perspective, however, I worry that his theory raises more questions than it answers. Why do some individuals feel that it is morally good (or necessary) to obey authority, favor the ingroup, and maintain purity, whereas others are skeptical? (Perhaps parenting style is relevant after all.) Why do some people think that it is morally acceptable to judge or even mistreat others such as gay or lesbian couples or, only a generation ago, interracial couples because they dislike or feel disgusted by them, whereas others do not? Why does the present generation “care about violence toward many more classes of victims
5 0.76884186 1947 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-20-We are what we are studying
Introduction: Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins writes : When native Australians or New Guineans say that their totemic animals and plants are their kinsmen – that these species are persons like themselves, and that in offering them to others they are giving away part of their own substance – we have to take them seriously, which is to say empirically, if we want to understand the large consequences of these facts for how they organise their lives. The graveyard of ethnographic studies is strewn with the remains of reports which, thanks to anthropologists’ own presuppositions as to what constitutes empirical fact, were content to ignore or debunk the Amazonian peoples who said that the animals they hunted were their brothers-in-law, the Africans who described the way they systematically killed their kings when they became weak, or the Fijian chiefs who claimed they were gods. My first thought was . . . wait a minute! Whazzat with “presuppositions as to what constitutes empirical fact”? That a
6 0.76355523 1303 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-I’m skeptical about this skeptical article about left-handedness
7 0.75812113 11 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-29-Auto-Gladwell, or Can fractals be used to predict human history?
8 0.75046796 285 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-18-Fiction is not for tirades? Tell that to Saul Bellow!
10 0.75006837 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
11 0.74792761 75 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-08-“Is the cyber mob a threat to freedom?”
12 0.74410391 1784 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-01-Wolfram on Mandelbrot
13 0.73818302 1616 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-10-John McAfee is a Heinlein hero
17 0.72954351 1496 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-14-Sides and Vavreck on the 2012 election
18 0.72190911 604 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-08-More on the missing conservative psychology researchers
19 0.72027427 2251 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-17-In the best alternative histories, the real world is what’s ultimately real
20 0.71943736 1031 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-27-Richard Stallman and John McCarthy
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.014), (15, 0.029), (16, 0.093), (24, 0.082), (42, 0.276), (55, 0.016), (72, 0.022), (77, 0.011), (86, 0.02), (88, 0.013), (97, 0.011), (99, 0.286)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.9349035 1775 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-23-In which I disagree with John Maynard Keynes
Introduction: In his review in 1938 of Historical Development of the Graphical Representation of Statistical Data , by H. Gray Funkhauser, for The Economic Journal , the great economist writes: Perhaps the most striking outcome of Mr. Funkhouser’s researches is the fact of the very slow progress which graphical methods made until quite recently. . . . In the first fifty volumes of the Statistical Journal, 1837-87, only fourteen graphs are printed altogether. It is surprising to be told that Laplace never drew a graph of the normal law of error . . . Edgeworth made no use of statistical charts as distinct from mathematical diagrams. Apart from Quetelet and Jevons, the most important influences were probably those of Galton and of Mulhall’s Dictionary, first published in 1884. Galton was indeed following his father and grandfather in this field, but his pioneer work was mainly restricted to meteorological maps, and he did not contribute to the development of the graphical representation of ec
Introduction: Paul Pudaite writes in response to my discussion with Bartels regarding effect sizes and measurement error models: You [Gelman] wrote: “I actually think there will be some (non-Gaussian) models for which, as y gets larger, E(x|y) can actually go back toward zero.” I [Pudaite] encountered this phenomenon some time in the ’90s. See this graph which shows the conditional expectation of X given Z, when Z = X + Y and the probability density functions of X and Y are, respectively, exp(-x^2) and 1/(y^2+1) (times appropriate constants). As the magnitude of Z increases, E[X|Z] shrinks to zero. I wasn’t sure it was worth the effort to try to publish a two paragraph paper. I suspect that this is true whenever the tail of one distribution is ‘sufficiently heavy’ with respect to the tail of the other. Hmm, I suppose there might be enough substance in a paper that attempted to characterize this outcome for, say, unimodal symmetric distributions. Maybe someone can do this? I think i
3 0.90484858 1791 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-07-Scatterplot charades!
Introduction: What are the x and y-axes here ? P.S. Popeye nails it (see comments).
Introduction: She was assigned to teach a class in “evidence-based medicine”! ( link from my usual news source). I wonder what was in the syllabus? If anyone has a copy, feel free to send to me and I will post it here. My favorite part of the story, though, is this: Almost all physician assistant students refused to comment to a reporter Tuesday, saying they’d been told by the department not to talk to media. Talk about obedience to authority! They’re studying in a program that offers nonexistent courses, but then they follow the department’s gag order.
5 0.89216459 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
6 0.89139318 713 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-15-1-2 social scientist + 1-2 politician = ???
same-blog 7 0.89007181 483 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-23-Science, ideology, and human origins
8 0.88797593 307 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-“Texting bans don’t reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases”
9 0.88736916 590 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-25-Good introductory book for statistical computation?
10 0.886522 60 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-30-What Auteur Theory and Freshwater Economics have in common
11 0.88279998 124 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-02-Note to the quals
12 0.87332046 1535 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-16-Bayesian analogue to stepwise regression?
13 0.86930668 1138 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-25-Chris Schmid on Evidence Based Medicine
14 0.86843997 492 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-30-That puzzle-solving feeling
15 0.85802341 111 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-26-Tough love as a style of writing
16 0.85696256 1726 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-18-What to read to catch up on multivariate statistics?
17 0.84708679 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum
18 0.84577566 746 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-05-An unexpected benefit of Arrow’s other theorem
19 0.8404355 2164 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-09-Hermann Goering and Jane Jacobs, together at last!
20 0.84037483 943 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-04-Flip it around