andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-701 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Regular readers of this blog know about the Bechdel test for movies: 1. [sent-1, score-0.243]
2 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. [sent-5, score-0.568]
3 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. [sent-6, score-0.953]
4 But even this movie failed the Bechdel test miserably! [sent-7, score-0.571]
5 I don’t even think it passed item #1 above, but if it did, it certainly failed #2. [sent-8, score-0.544]
6 If even the chick flicks are failing the Bechdel test, then, yeah, we’re really in trouble. [sent-9, score-0.806]
7 And don’t get me started on those old Warner Brothers cartoons. [sent-10, score-0.135]
8 They’re great but they feature about as many female characters as the average WWII submarine. [sent-11, score-0.358]
9 Sure, everybody knows this, but it’s still striking to think about just how unbalanced these things are. [sent-12, score-0.408]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('bechdel', 0.546), ('chick', 0.364), ('failed', 0.19), ('test', 0.184), ('passively', 0.166), ('flicks', 0.166), ('miserably', 0.166), ('warner', 0.166), ('wwii', 0.156), ('unbalanced', 0.15), ('brothers', 0.14), ('plane', 0.136), ('watched', 0.126), ('failing', 0.12), ('movies', 0.119), ('besides', 0.116), ('characters', 0.109), ('passed', 0.104), ('female', 0.104), ('striking', 0.103), ('character', 0.102), ('woman', 0.102), ('even', 0.1), ('amusing', 0.099), ('movie', 0.097), ('yeah', 0.09), ('feature', 0.089), ('item', 0.087), ('man', 0.085), ('regular', 0.084), ('parts', 0.084), ('huh', 0.083), ('women', 0.081), ('everybody', 0.08), ('knows', 0.075), ('started', 0.072), ('heard', 0.07), ('happened', 0.068), ('love', 0.068), ('main', 0.065), ('something', 0.064), ('old', 0.063), ('certainly', 0.063), ('readers', 0.059), ('re', 0.059), ('average', 0.056), ('really', 0.056), ('talk', 0.055), ('day', 0.055), ('clear', 0.05)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 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
2 0.10333361 2103 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-16-Objects of the class “Objects of the class”
Introduction: Objects of the class “Foghorn Leghorn” : parodies that are more famous than the original. (“It would be as if everybody were familiar with Duchamp’s Mona-Lisa-with-a-moustache while never having heard of Leonardo’s version.”) Objects of the class “Whoopi Goldberg” : actors who are undeniably talented but are almost always in bad movies, or at least movies that aren’t worthy of their talent. (The opposite: William Holden.) Objects of the class “Weekend at Bernie’s” : low-quality movie, nobody’s actually seen it, but everybody knows what it’s about. (Other examples: Heathers and Zelig.) I love these. We need some more.
Introduction: In this article , Oliver Sacks talks about his extreme difficulty in recognizing people (even close friends) and places (even extremely familiar locations such as his apartment and his office). After reading this, I started to wonder if I have a very mild case of face-blindness. I’m very good at recognizing places, but I’m not good at faces. And I can’t really visualize faces at all. Like Sacks and some of his correspondents, I often have to do it by cheating, by recognizing certain landmarks that I can remember, thus coding the face linguistically rather than visually. (On the other hand, when thinking about mathematics or statistics, I’m very visual, as readers of this blog can attest.) Anyway, in searching for the link to Sacks’s article, I came across the “ Cambridge Face Memory Test .” My reaction when taking this test was mostly irritation. I just found it annoying to stare at all these unadorned faces, and in my attempt to memorize them, I was trying to use trick
4 0.087770775 1945 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-18-“How big is your chance of dying in an ordinary play?”
Introduction: At first glance, that’s what I thought Tyler Cowen was asking . I assumed he was asking about the characters, not the audience, as watching a play seems like a pretty safe activity (A. Lincoln excepted). Characters in plays die all the time. I wonder what the chance is? Something between 5% and 10%, I’d guess. I’d guess your chance of dying (as a character) in a movie would be higher. On the other hand, movies have lots of extras who just show up and leave; if you count them maybe the risk isn’t so high. Perhaps the right way to do this is to weight people by screen time? P.S. The Mezzanine aside, works of art and literature tend to focus on the dramatic moments of lives, so it makes sense that death will be overrepresented.
5 0.083869725 148 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-15-“Gender Bias Still Exists in Modern Children’s Literature, Say Centre Researchers”
Introduction: You know that expression, “Not from the Onion”? How did we say that, all those years before the Onion existed? I was thinking about this after encountering (amidst a Google search for something else) this article on a website called “College News”: DANVILLE, KY., March 8, 2007–Two Centre College professors spent the past six years reading and analyzing 200 children’s books to discover a disturbing trend: gender bias still exists in much of modern children’s literature. Dr. David Anderson, professor of economics, and Dr. Mykol Hamilton, professor of psychology, have documented that gender bias is common today in many children’s books in their research published recently in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research titled “Gender Stereotyping and Under-Representation of Female Characters in 200 Popular Children’s Picture Books: A 21st Century Update.” . . . “Centre College,” huh? That’s where Area Man is studying, right? According to the materials on its website, Centre College is
6 0.074435234 174 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-01-Literature and life
7 0.065469928 281 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-16-NSF crowdsourcing
8 0.063282646 229 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Bizarre twisty argument about medical diagnostic tests
10 0.059548844 1381 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-16-The Art of Fielding
11 0.059004299 1612 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-08-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
12 0.058877837 409 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-“Tiny,” “Large,” “Very,” “Nice,” “Dumbest”
14 0.057199374 2197 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-04-Peabody here.
15 0.056611951 1255 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Amtrak sucks
16 0.056406997 481 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-22-The Jumpstart financial literacy survey and the different purposes of tests
17 0.054461945 1390 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-23-Traditionalist claims that modern art could just as well be replaced by a “paint-throwing chimp”
18 0.053605393 1490 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-09-I’m still wondering . . .
19 0.052359067 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
20 0.051863447 1605 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-Write This Book
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.091), (1, -0.048), (2, -0.014), (3, 0.006), (4, 0.013), (5, -0.002), (6, 0.053), (7, 0.012), (8, 0.026), (9, -0.023), (10, -0.013), (11, 0.006), (12, 0.014), (13, -0.027), (14, 0.003), (15, -0.019), (16, 0.01), (17, -0.015), (18, 0.013), (19, -0.011), (20, -0.023), (21, -0.01), (22, 0.008), (23, 0.001), (24, 0.018), (25, 0.0), (26, -0.059), (27, -0.022), (28, -0.013), (29, 0.009), (30, 0.021), (31, 0.002), (32, 0.027), (33, -0.026), (34, 0.043), (35, -0.012), (36, 0.016), (37, 0.014), (38, -0.015), (39, -0.019), (40, -0.002), (41, -0.027), (42, 0.033), (43, -0.001), (44, -0.017), (45, 0.025), (46, -0.0), (47, -0.024), (48, 0.005), (49, -0.008)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94946033 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
Introduction: In this article , Oliver Sacks talks about his extreme difficulty in recognizing people (even close friends) and places (even extremely familiar locations such as his apartment and his office). After reading this, I started to wonder if I have a very mild case of face-blindness. I’m very good at recognizing places, but I’m not good at faces. And I can’t really visualize faces at all. Like Sacks and some of his correspondents, I often have to do it by cheating, by recognizing certain landmarks that I can remember, thus coding the face linguistically rather than visually. (On the other hand, when thinking about mathematics or statistics, I’m very visual, as readers of this blog can attest.) Anyway, in searching for the link to Sacks’s article, I came across the “ Cambridge Face Memory Test .” My reaction when taking this test was mostly irritation. I just found it annoying to stare at all these unadorned faces, and in my attempt to memorize them, I was trying to use trick
3 0.74696791 2119 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-01-Separated by a common blah blah blah
Introduction: I love reading the kind of English that English people write. It’s the same language as American but just slightly different. I was thinking about this recently after coming across this footnote from “Yeah Yeah Yeah: The Story of Modern Pop,” by Bob Stanley: Mantovani’s atmospheric arrangement on ‘Care Mia’, I should add, is something else. Genuinely celestial. If anyone with a degree of subtlety was singing, it would be quite a record. It’s hard for me to pin down exactly what makes this passage specifically English, but there’s something about it . . . P.S. Mark Liberman reports that, in combination, several of the words and phrases in the above quote indeed supply strong evidence (“odds of better than 50 to 1 in favor of a British origin”).
4 0.73615915 430 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-25-The von Neumann paradox
Introduction: I, like Steve Hsu , I too would love to read a definitive biography of John von Neumann (or, as we’d say in the U.S., “John Neumann”). I’ve read little things about him in various places such as Stanislaw Ulam’s classic autobiography, and two things I’ve repeatedly noticed are: 1. Neumann comes off as a obnoxious, self-satisfied jerk. He just seems like the kind of guy I wouldn’t like in real life. 2. All these great men seem to really have loved the guy. It’s hard for me to reconcile two impressions above. Of course, lots of people have a good side and a bad side, but what’s striking here is that my impressions of Neumann’s bad side come from the very stories that his friends use to demonstrate how lovable he was! So, yes, I’d like to see the biography–but only if it could resolve this paradox. Also, I don’t know how relevant this is, but Neumann shares one thing with the more-lovable Ulam and the less-lovable Mandelbrot: all had Jewish backgrounds but didn’t seem to
5 0.72229815 594 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-28-Behavioral economics doesn’t seem to have much to say about marriage
Introduction: This was just bizarre. It’s an interview with Colin Camerer, a professor of finance and economics at Caltech, The topic is Camerer’s marriage, but what’s weird is that he doesn’t say anything specific about his wife at all. All we get are witticisms of the sub-Henny-Youngman level, for example, in response to the question, “Any free riding in your household?”, Camerer says: No. Here’s why: I am one of the world’s leading experts on psychology, the brain and strategic game theory. But my wife is a woman. So it’s a tie. Also some schoolyard evolutionary biology (“men signaling that they will help you raise your baby after conception, and women signaling fidelity” blah blah blah) and advice for husbands in “upper-class marriages with assets.” (No advice to the wives, but maybe that’s a good thing.) And here are his insights on love and marriage: Marriage is like hot slow-burning embers compared to the flashy flames of love. After the babies, the married brain has better thin
6 0.71795267 1307 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-07-The hare, the pineapple, and Ed Wegman
7 0.71488297 1935 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-12-“A tangle of unexamined emotional impulses and illogical responses”
8 0.71427524 2197 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-04-Peabody here.
9 0.712704 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race
10 0.71075708 1553 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-30-Real rothko, fake rothko
11 0.70547295 1007 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-At last, treated with the disrespect that I deserve
12 0.70235544 2369 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-11-“I can’t drive home now. Not just yet. First I need to go to Utrecht.”
13 0.70159125 2300 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-Ticket to Baaaath
14 0.70079464 489 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-28-Brow inflation
15 0.69831097 1707 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-05-Glenn Hubbard and I were on opposite sides of a court case and I didn’t even know it!
16 0.69677818 197 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The last great essayist?
17 0.69434714 1938 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-14-Learning how to speak
18 0.69275361 532 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-23-My Wall Street Journal story
19 0.69073564 1780 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-28-Racism!
20 0.69031739 1190 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-29-Why “Why”?
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.049), (13, 0.015), (16, 0.02), (24, 0.147), (27, 0.02), (32, 0.238), (42, 0.015), (76, 0.029), (86, 0.048), (95, 0.019), (99, 0.279)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.90554553 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
2 0.90079963 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
3 0.89683926 1970 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-06-New words of 1917
Introduction: I happened to come across a little book, “Current Glossary: Words Coined Since the War.” Here are some of them: as’pi-rin, n. A white compound used as a drug in the cure of headaches and rheumatism. bob’go, n. A kind of antelope in Africa; its meat is good for food. cat’ta-lo, n. A cross between an American bison and a cow. dart, n. A short, pointed spear-like weapon of steel dropped by airmen in attacks on the enemy. free’lance, n. A rover in literature, a writer not in the employ of one firm. griz’zly bear. A new kind of dance. You get the idea. P.S. Some more literary nostalgia from the archives: Prolefeed 70 Years of Best Sellers More on book sales . . . and reflections on the disappearance of millions of copies of the once-ubiquitous “Alive!”
4 0.88862717 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 0.88355124 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
6 0.86212063 1360 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-02-Helpful on happiness
7 0.83518958 1191 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-01-Hoe noem je?
8 0.82661784 146 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-14-The statistics and the science
9 0.8126744 1563 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-05-Someone is wrong on the internet, part 2
10 0.8073777 455 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-07-Some ideas on communicating risks to the general public
11 0.80605328 1269 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-19-Believe your models (up to the point that you abandon them)
12 0.79375106 1342 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-24-The Used TV Price is Too Damn High
13 0.79356426 635 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Bayesian spam!
14 0.79322988 2364 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-08-Regression and causality and variable ordering
15 0.79244006 272 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-13-Ross Ihaka to R: Drop Dead
16 0.79194897 541 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-27-Why can’t I be more like Bill James, or, The use of default and default-like models
17 0.79192144 790 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Blog in motion
18 0.79124594 2211 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-14-The popularity of certain baby names is falling off the clifffffffffffff
19 0.78793013 2270 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-28-Creating a Lenin-style democracy
20 0.78787905 86 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-“Too much data”?