andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-739 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: That cute picture is of toddler FDR in a dress, from 1884. Jeanne Maglaty writes : A Ladies’ Home Journal article [or maybe from a different source, according to a commenter] in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s . . . When the women’s liberation movement arrived in the mid-1960s, w
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 That cute picture is of toddler FDR in a dress, from 1884. [sent-1, score-0.445]
2 Jeanne Maglaty writes : A Ladies’ Home Journal article [or maybe from a different source, according to a commenter] in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. [sent-2, score-1.024]
3 The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl. [sent-3, score-0.364]
4 ” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. [sent-4, score-1.754]
5 In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U. [sent-5, score-0.941]
6 In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. [sent-8, score-0.569]
7 Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s . [sent-11, score-0.235]
8 When the women’s liberation movement arrived in the mid-1960s, with its anti-feminine, anti-fashion message, the unisex look became the rage . [sent-14, score-0.385]
9 in the 1970s, the Sears, Roebuck catalog pictured no pink toddler clothing for two years. [sent-17, score-1.239]
10 Which reminds me of this delightfully ridiculous story . [sent-25, score-0.279]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('pink', 0.467), ('toddler', 0.291), ('boys', 0.268), ('blue', 0.258), ('dress', 0.23), ('clothing', 0.224), ('babies', 0.175), ('according', 0.163), ('color', 0.151), ('prettier', 0.132), ('delightfully', 0.132), ('pictured', 0.132), ('rage', 0.125), ('marshall', 0.125), ('catalog', 0.125), ('ladies', 0.125), ('fdr', 0.119), ('printed', 0.112), ('boston', 0.104), ('arrived', 0.104), ('cleveland', 0.096), ('remained', 0.095), ('suitable', 0.092), ('boy', 0.091), ('girls', 0.089), ('chart', 0.089), ('june', 0.089), ('cute', 0.088), ('colors', 0.088), ('movement', 0.087), ('established', 0.084), ('ridiculous', 0.082), ('said', 0.075), ('stronger', 0.075), ('accepted', 0.074), ('commenter', 0.071), ('magazine', 0.071), ('parents', 0.071), ('city', 0.071), ('became', 0.069), ('sources', 0.066), ('picture', 0.066), ('reminds', 0.065), ('decided', 0.065), ('women', 0.065), ('home', 0.064), ('source', 0.063), ('rule', 0.062), ('message', 0.062), ('leading', 0.061)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 739 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-31-When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
Introduction: That cute picture is of toddler FDR in a dress, from 1884. Jeanne Maglaty writes : A Ladies’ Home Journal article [or maybe from a different source, according to a commenter] in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s . . . When the women’s liberation movement arrived in the mid-1960s, w
2 0.16593796 1366 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-05-How do segregation measures change when you change the level of aggregation?
Introduction: In a discussion of workplace segregation, Philip Cohen posts some graphs that led me to a statistical question. I’ll pose my question below, but first the graphs: In a world of zero segregation of jobs by sex, the top graph above would have a spike at 50% (or, whatever the actual percentage is of women in the labor force) and, in the bottom graph, the pink and blue lines would be in the same place and would look like very steep S curves. The difference between the pink and blue lines represents segregation by job. One thing I wonder is how these graphs would change if we redefine occupation. (For example, is my occupation “mathematical scientist,” “statistician,” “teacher,” “university professor,” “statistics professor,” or “tenured statistics professor”?) Finer or coarser classification would give different results, and I wonder how this would work. This is not at all meant as a criticism of Cohen’s claims, it’s just a statistical question. I’m guessing that
Introduction: Last week I published in Slate a critique of a paper that appeared in the journal Psychological Science. That paper, by Alec Beall and Jessica Tracy, found that women who were at peak fertility were three times more likely to wear red or pink shirts, compared to women at other points in their menstrual cycles. The study was based an 100 participants on the internet and 24 college students. In my critique, I argued that we had no reason to believe the results generalized to the larger population, because (1) the samples were not representative, (2) the measurements were noisy, (3) the researchers did not use the correct dates of peak fertility, and (4) there were many different comparisons that could have been reported in the data, so there was nothing special about a particular comparison being statistically significant. I likened their paper to other work which I considered flawed for multiple comparisons (too many researcher degrees of freedom), including a claimed relation bet
4 0.13845578 2187 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Twitter sucks, and people are gullible as f…
Introduction: Hey, and I did it in less than 140 characters! The above was my response to this item which David Hogg forwarded to me. The next thing you know, people are going to claim that women are three times as likely to wear red pink when . . . Naaah, forget about it, that would never happen. Hmmm, I think the above is not so savvy of me, to just go around insulting a whole bunch of people. So let me just say that becoming numerate is not as easy as it might seem. All of us can be gullible in areas outside of our expertise. Indeed, I’ve fallen for the occasional April Fool’s gag myself. And, maybe it’s not really right for me to say that “Twitter sucks.” Sure, the downside of Twitter is that people can just pass along a silly joke, not realizing it’s a joke at all. But the upside is, I hope, that once people have committed themselves and then realize they were mistaken, they’ll think harder the next time they see something like that. I hope the same thing goes with the “women
5 0.12895402 1664 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-10-Recently in the sister blog: Brussels sprouts, ugly graphs, and switched at birth
Introduction: 1. Congress vs. Nickelback: The real action is in the cross tabs : Conservatives are mean, liberals are big babies, and, if supporting an STD is what it takes to be a political moderate, I don’t want to be one. 2. How 2012 stacks up: The worst graph on record? : OK, not actually worse than this one . 3. Boys will be boys; cows will be cows : Children’s essentialist reasoning about gender categories and animal species.
6 0.12149608 161 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-24-Differences in color perception by sex, also the Bechdel test for women in movies
9 0.099286824 2212 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-15-Mary, Mary, why ya buggin
10 0.09914735 2141 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-20-Don’t douthat, man! Please give this fallacy a name.
11 0.092780069 1803 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-14-Why girls do better in school
12 0.092017621 1125 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-18-Beautiful Line Charts
13 0.089769095 1391 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-25-A question about the Tiger Mom: what if she’d had boys instead of girls?
14 0.083409168 832 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-31-Even a good data display can sometimes be improved
16 0.082596689 1954 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-24-Too Good To Be True: The Scientific Mass Production of Spurious Statistical Significance
17 0.07654234 2288 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-10-Small multiples of lineplots > maps (ok, not always, but yes in this case)
18 0.07327491 854 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-15-A silly paper that tries to make fun of multilevel models
19 0.071375266 362 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-A redrawing of the Red-Blue map in November 2010?
20 0.06705302 1635 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-22-More Pinker Pinker Pinker
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.062), (1, -0.051), (2, 0.016), (3, 0.002), (4, 0.009), (5, -0.035), (6, -0.013), (7, 0.009), (8, -0.033), (9, 0.007), (10, -0.002), (11, -0.006), (12, 0.002), (13, 0.012), (14, 0.038), (15, 0.014), (16, 0.031), (17, 0.007), (18, -0.011), (19, -0.02), (20, 0.0), (21, -0.031), (22, -0.029), (23, -0.041), (24, 0.047), (25, 0.005), (26, -0.079), (27, -0.003), (28, 0.029), (29, -0.035), (30, -0.008), (31, -0.013), (32, -0.015), (33, 0.013), (34, -0.011), (35, 0.006), (36, -0.005), (37, 0.023), (38, -0.038), (39, 0.004), (40, -0.035), (41, 0.031), (42, 0.053), (43, 0.019), (44, -0.004), (45, 0.053), (46, -0.016), (47, 0.035), (48, 0.019), (49, 0.007)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97376883 739 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-31-When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
Introduction: That cute picture is of toddler FDR in a dress, from 1884. Jeanne Maglaty writes : A Ladies’ Home Journal article [or maybe from a different source, according to a commenter] in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s . . . When the women’s liberation movement arrived in the mid-1960s, w
2 0.7262004 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 0.70212972 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
4 0.66065359 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 0.59849685 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
6 0.59803838 2211 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-14-The popularity of certain baby names is falling off the clifffffffffffff
7 0.59467483 1664 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-10-Recently in the sister blog: Brussels sprouts, ugly graphs, and switched at birth
8 0.59226066 161 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-24-Differences in color perception by sex, also the Bechdel test for women in movies
9 0.59215921 2166 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-10-3 years out of date on the whole Dennis the dentist thing!
10 0.56051689 565 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-09-Dennis the dentist, debunked?
12 0.55530488 456 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-07-The red-state, blue-state war is happening in the upper half of the income distribution
13 0.54173779 188 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-06-Fake newspaper headlines
14 0.54022878 1128 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-19-Sharon Begley: Worse than Stephen Jay Gould?
15 0.5381735 1053 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-11-This one is so dumb it makes me want to barf
16 0.53616673 2333 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-13-Personally, I’d rather go with Teragram
17 0.52338713 595 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-28-What Zombies see in Scatterplots
18 0.51915854 19 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-OK, so this is how I ended up working with three different guys named Matt
19 0.51673782 2065 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-Cool dynamic demographic maps provide beautiful illustration of Chris Rock effect
20 0.5151248 1386 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-21-Belief in hell is associated with lower crime rates
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.019), (5, 0.06), (15, 0.018), (16, 0.103), (21, 0.01), (24, 0.043), (33, 0.018), (40, 0.025), (41, 0.024), (42, 0.013), (63, 0.358), (95, 0.025), (99, 0.169)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94017506 739 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-31-When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
Introduction: That cute picture is of toddler FDR in a dress, from 1884. Jeanne Maglaty writes : A Ladies’ Home Journal article [or maybe from a different source, according to a commenter] in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s . . . When the women’s liberation movement arrived in the mid-1960s, w
2 0.86845648 568 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-11-Calibration in chess
Introduction: Has anybody done this study yet? I’m curious about the results. Perhaps there’s some chess-playing cognitive psychologist who’d like to collaborate on this?
3 0.86086577 628 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-25-100-year floods
Introduction: According to the National Weather Service : What is a 100 year flood? A 100 year flood is an event that statistically has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. A 500 year flood has a .2% chance of occurring and a 1000 year flood has a .1% chance of occurring. The accompanying map shows a part of Tennessee that in May 2010 had 1000-year levels of flooding. At first, it seems hard to believe that a 1000-year flood would have just happened to occur last year. But then, this is just a 1000-year flood for that particular place. I don’t really have a sense of the statistics of these events. How many 100-year, 500-year, and 1000-year flood events have been recorded by the Weather Service, and when have they occurred?
4 0.83758968 684 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-28-Hierarchical ordered logit or probit
Introduction: Jeff writes: How far off is bglmer and can it handle ordered logit or multinom logit? My reply: bglmer is very close. No ordered logit but I was just talking about it with Sophia today. My guess is that the easiest way to fit a hierarchical ordered logit or multinom logit will be to use stan. For right now I’d recommend using glmer/bglmer to fit the ordered logits in order (e.g., 1 vs. 2,3,4, then 2 vs. 3,4, then 3 vs. 4). Or maybe there’s already a hierarchical multinomial logit in mcmcpack or somewhere?
5 0.82152617 126 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-03-Graphical presentation of risk ratios
Introduction: Jimmy passes this article by Ahmad Reza Hosseinpoor and Carla AbouZahr. I have little to say, except that (a) they seem to be making a reasonable point, and (b) those bar graphs are pretty ugly.
6 0.80168283 313 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-A question for psychometricians
8 0.79151702 745 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-04-High-level intellectual discussions in the Columbia statistics department
9 0.74987096 782 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-29-Putting together multinomial discrete regressions by combining simple logits
10 0.74017549 1621 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-13-Puzzles of criminal justice
11 0.73509347 1078 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-22-Tables as graphs: The Ramanujan principle
12 0.71341962 293 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Lowess is great
13 0.69896412 1484 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-05-Two exciting movie ideas: “Second Chance U” and “The New Dirty Dozen”
14 0.69270736 102 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-21-Why modern art is all in the mind
15 0.69122577 1316 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-12-black and Black, white and White
16 0.69084048 1480 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-02-“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.”
17 0.67762202 2249 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-15-Recently in the sister blog
18 0.63898081 1201 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-07-Inference = data + model
19 0.63482249 2163 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-08-How to display multinominal logit results graphically?
20 0.63049889 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?