andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-904 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: The other day someone mentioned my complaint about the Wikipedia article on “Bayesian inference” (see footnote 1 of this article ) and he said I should fix the Wikipedia entry myself. And so I did . I didn’t have the energy to rewrite the whole article–in particular, all of its examples involve discrete parameters, whereas the Bayesian problems I work on generally have continuous parameters, and its “mathematical foundations” section focuses on “independent identically distributed observations x” rather than data y which can have different distributions. It’s just a wacky, unbalanced article. But I altered the first few paragraphs to get rid of the stuff about the posterior probability that a model is true. I much prefer the Scholarpedia article on Bayesian statistics by David Spiegelhalter and Kenneth Rice, but I couldn’t bring myself to simply delete the Wikipedia article and replace it with the Scholarpedia content. Just to be clear: I’m not at all trying to disparage
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 The other day someone mentioned my complaint about the Wikipedia article on “Bayesian inference” (see footnote 1 of this article ) and he said I should fix the Wikipedia entry myself. [sent-1, score-1.027]
2 But I altered the first few paragraphs to get rid of the stuff about the posterior probability that a model is true. [sent-5, score-0.639]
3 I much prefer the Scholarpedia article on Bayesian statistics by David Spiegelhalter and Kenneth Rice, but I couldn’t bring myself to simply delete the Wikipedia article and replace it with the Scholarpedia content. [sent-6, score-0.897]
4 Just to be clear: I’m not at all trying to disparage the efforts of the Wikipedians. [sent-7, score-0.247]
5 It’s only through putting stuff out there that it can be edited and improved. [sent-8, score-0.373]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('scholarpedia', 0.385), ('wikipedia', 0.312), ('article', 0.188), ('identically', 0.182), ('unbalanced', 0.174), ('spiegelhalter', 0.174), ('delete', 0.168), ('altered', 0.163), ('rewrite', 0.158), ('rice', 0.155), ('parameters', 0.155), ('bayesian', 0.15), ('complaint', 0.149), ('stuff', 0.148), ('wacky', 0.146), ('kenneth', 0.146), ('disparage', 0.144), ('footnote', 0.133), ('rid', 0.133), ('edited', 0.131), ('foundations', 0.125), ('distributed', 0.122), ('focuses', 0.121), ('fix', 0.117), ('paragraphs', 0.116), ('replace', 0.114), ('involve', 0.111), ('energy', 0.107), ('improved', 0.107), ('discrete', 0.107), ('observations', 0.106), ('efforts', 0.103), ('entry', 0.097), ('continuous', 0.097), ('putting', 0.094), ('independent', 0.093), ('bring', 0.092), ('mentioned', 0.092), ('couldn', 0.087), ('mathematical', 0.087), ('whereas', 0.087), ('section', 0.085), ('posterior', 0.079), ('prefer', 0.078), ('whole', 0.07), ('david', 0.07), ('simply', 0.069), ('generally', 0.067), ('examples', 0.066), ('day', 0.063)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 904 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-13-My wikipedia edit
Introduction: The other day someone mentioned my complaint about the Wikipedia article on “Bayesian inference” (see footnote 1 of this article ) and he said I should fix the Wikipedia entry myself. And so I did . I didn’t have the energy to rewrite the whole article–in particular, all of its examples involve discrete parameters, whereas the Bayesian problems I work on generally have continuous parameters, and its “mathematical foundations” section focuses on “independent identically distributed observations x” rather than data y which can have different distributions. It’s just a wacky, unbalanced article. But I altered the first few paragraphs to get rid of the stuff about the posterior probability that a model is true. I much prefer the Scholarpedia article on Bayesian statistics by David Spiegelhalter and Kenneth Rice, but I couldn’t bring myself to simply delete the Wikipedia article and replace it with the Scholarpedia content. Just to be clear: I’m not at all trying to disparage
2 0.16973874 640 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-31-Why Edit Wikipedia?
Introduction: Zoe Corbyn’s article for The Guardian (UK), titled Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics , and the followup discussion on Slashdot got me thinking about my own Wikipedia edits. The article quotes Dario Taraborelli, a research analyst for the Wikimedia Foundation, as saying “Academics are trapped in this paradox of using Wikipedia but not contributing,” Huh? I’m really wondering what man-in-the-street wrote all the great stats stuff out there. And what’s the paradox? I use lots of things without contributing to them. Taraborelli is further quoted as saying “The Wikimedia Foundation is looking at how it might capture expert conversation about Wikipedia content happening on other websites and feed it back to the community as a way of providing pointers for improvement.” This struck home. I recently went through the entry for latent Dirichlet allocation and found a bug in their derivation. I wrote up a revised derivation and posted it on my own blog .
3 0.16451675 1251 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-07-Mathematical model of vote operations
Introduction: Alex points me to this paper by Lirong Xia. With its model of independent identically distributed votes, the paper is a bit theoretical for my taste, but maybe it will interest some of you.
4 0.14474681 1205 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-09-Coming to agreement on philosophy of statistics
Introduction: Deborah Mayo collected some reactions to my recent article , Induction and Deduction in Bayesian Data Analysis. I’m pleased that that everybody (philosopher Mayo, applied statistician Stephen Senn, and theoretical statistician Larry Wasserman) is so positive about my article and that nobody’s defending the sort of hard-core inductivism that’s featured on the Bayesian inference wikipedia page. Here’s the Wikipedia definition, which I disagree with: Bayesian inference uses aspects of the scientific method, which involves collecting evidence that is meant to be consistent or inconsistent with a given hypothesis. As evidence accumulates, the degree of belief in a hypothesis ought to change. With enough evidence, it should become very high or very low. . . . Bayesian inference uses a numerical estimate of the degree of belief in a hypothesis before evidence has been observed and calculates a numerical estimate of the degree of belief in the hypothesis after evidence has been obse
5 0.13640636 6 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Jelte Wicherts lays down the stats on IQ
Introduction: Good stuff.
6 0.13133171 190 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-07-Mister P makes the big jump from the New York Times to the Washington Post
7 0.12970936 1228 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-25-Continuous variables in Bayesian networks
8 0.12837704 1026 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Bayes wikipedia update
10 0.10593626 1712 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-07-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics (with all the discussions!)
11 0.10479621 781 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-28-The holes in my philosophy of Bayesian data analysis
12 0.10299002 1554 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-31-It not necessary that Bayesian methods conform to the likelihood principle
13 0.10283723 1438 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-What is a Bayesian?
14 0.10272514 2003 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-30-Stan Project: Continuous Relaxations for Discrete MRFs
15 0.10243839 436 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-Quality control problems at the New York Times
16 0.10142311 1779 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-“Two Dogmas of Strong Objective Bayesianism”
17 0.10139224 811 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-20-Kind of Bayesian
18 0.095982984 1529 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-11-Bayesian brains?
19 0.093350187 1314 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-12-More on Uncle Woody
20 0.089867406 2368 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-11-Bayes in the research conversation
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.135), (1, 0.091), (2, -0.073), (3, 0.045), (4, -0.068), (5, -0.009), (6, 0.004), (7, 0.021), (8, 0.031), (9, -0.046), (10, 0.025), (11, -0.027), (12, -0.037), (13, 0.024), (14, 0.022), (15, 0.022), (16, 0.032), (17, 0.038), (18, -0.014), (19, 0.033), (20, -0.0), (21, 0.04), (22, 0.005), (23, -0.036), (24, 0.032), (25, -0.03), (26, -0.061), (27, 0.032), (28, 0.006), (29, -0.001), (30, 0.05), (31, 0.013), (32, 0.002), (33, -0.034), (34, -0.005), (35, -0.018), (36, 0.003), (37, -0.053), (38, -0.004), (39, 0.009), (40, -0.011), (41, -0.035), (42, -0.02), (43, 0.02), (44, 0.068), (45, -0.014), (46, 0.027), (47, 0.002), (48, 0.005), (49, -0.029)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97990841 904 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-13-My wikipedia edit
Introduction: The other day someone mentioned my complaint about the Wikipedia article on “Bayesian inference” (see footnote 1 of this article ) and he said I should fix the Wikipedia entry myself. And so I did . I didn’t have the energy to rewrite the whole article–in particular, all of its examples involve discrete parameters, whereas the Bayesian problems I work on generally have continuous parameters, and its “mathematical foundations” section focuses on “independent identically distributed observations x” rather than data y which can have different distributions. It’s just a wacky, unbalanced article. But I altered the first few paragraphs to get rid of the stuff about the posterior probability that a model is true. I much prefer the Scholarpedia article on Bayesian statistics by David Spiegelhalter and Kenneth Rice, but I couldn’t bring myself to simply delete the Wikipedia article and replace it with the Scholarpedia content. Just to be clear: I’m not at all trying to disparage
Introduction: Updated version of my paper with Xian: The missionary zeal of many Bayesians of old has been matched, in the other direction, by an attitude among some theoreticians that Bayesian methods are absurd—not merely misguided but obviously wrong in principle. We consider several examples, beginning with Feller’s classic text on probability theory and continuing with more recent cases such as the perceived Bayesian nature of the so-called doomsday argument. We analyze in this note the intellectual background behind various misconceptions about Bayesian statistics, without aiming at a complete historical coverage of the reasons for this dismissal. I love this stuff.
3 0.80642956 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
4 0.80067259 2254 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-18-Those wacky anti-Bayesians used to be intimidating, but now they’re just pathetic
Introduction: From 2006 : Eric Archer forwarded this document by Nick Freemantle, “The Reverend Bayes—was he really a prophet?”, in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine: Does [Bayes's] contribution merit the enthusiasms of his followers? Or is his legacy overhyped? . . . First, Bayesians appear to have an absolute right to disapprove of any conventional approach in statistics without offering a workable alternative—for example, a colleague recently stated at a meeting that ‘. . . it is OK to have multiple comparisons because Bayesians’ don’t believe in alpha spending’. . . . Second, Bayesians appear to build an army of straw men—everything it seems is different and better from a Bayesian perspective, although many of the concepts seem remarkably familiar. For example, a very well known Bayesian statistician recently surprised the audience with his discovery of the P value as a useful Bayesian statistic at a meeting in Birmingham. Third, Bayesians possess enormous enthusiasm fo
5 0.79912323 117 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-29-Ya don’t know Bayes, Jack
Introduction: I came across this article on the philosophy of statistics by University of Michigan economist John DiNardo. I don’t have much to say about the substance of the article because most of it is an argument against something called “Bayesian methods” that doesn’t have much in common with the Bayesian data analysis that I do. If an quantitative, empirically-minded economist at a top university doesn’t know about modern Bayesian methods, then it’s a pretty good guess that confusion holds in many other quarters as well, so I thought I’d try to clear a couple of things up. (See also here .) In the short term, I know I have some readers at the University of Michigan, so maybe a couple of you could go over to Prof. DiNardo’s office and discuss this with him? For the rest of you, please spread the word. My point here is not to claim that DiNardo should be using Bayesian methods or to claim that he’s doing anything wrong in his applied work. It’s just that he’s fighting against a bu
6 0.78813982 1259 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-11-How things sound to us, versus how they sound to others
7 0.78785503 110 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-26-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics
8 0.785074 1438 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-What is a Bayesian?
9 0.7795741 2000 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-28-Why during the 1950-1960′s did Jerry Cornfield become a Bayesian?
10 0.7792027 1205 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-09-Coming to agreement on philosophy of statistics
11 0.77206773 291 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-22-Philosophy of Bayes and non-Bayes: A dialogue with Deborah Mayo
12 0.7639907 83 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-13-Silly Sas lays out old-fashioned statistical thinking
13 0.76133573 1779 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-“Two Dogmas of Strong Objective Bayesianism”
14 0.74470639 133 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-08-Gratuitous use of “Bayesian Statistics,” a branding issue?
15 0.74267775 746 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-05-An unexpected benefit of Arrow’s other theorem
16 0.73662078 2067 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-EP and ABC
17 0.73245722 1019 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-19-Validation of Software for Bayesian Models Using Posterior Quantiles
18 0.73104328 1719 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-11-Why waste time philosophizing?
19 0.7267856 1781 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-29-Another Feller theory
20 0.72637594 1712 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-07-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics (with all the discussions!)
topicId topicWeight
[(13, 0.022), (16, 0.064), (24, 0.072), (46, 0.019), (53, 0.019), (68, 0.023), (72, 0.015), (86, 0.389), (99, 0.265)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.98195899 1427 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-24-More from the sister blog
Introduction: Anthropologist Bruce Mannheim reports that a recent well-publicized study on the genetics of native Americans, which used genetic analysis to find “at least three streams of Asian gene flow,” is in fact a confirmation of a long-known fact. Mannheim writes: This three-way distinction was known linguistically since the 1920s (for example, Sapir 1921). Basically, it’s a division among the Eskimo-Aleut languages, which straddle the Bering Straits even today, the Athabaskan languages (which were discovered to be related to a small Siberian language family only within the last few years, not by Greenberg as Wade suggested), and everything else. This is not to say that the results from genetics are unimportant, but it’s good to see how it fits with other aspects of our understanding.
2 0.97095829 558 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-05-Fattening of the world and good use of the alpha channel
Introduction: In the spirit of Gapminder , Washington Post created an interactive scatterplot viewer that’s using alpha channel to tell apart overlapping fat dots better than sorting-by-circle-size Gapminder is using: Good news: the rate of fattening of the USA appears to be slowing down. Maybe because of high gas prices? But what’s happening with Oceania?
3 0.96860802 1530 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-11-Migrating your blog from Movable Type to WordPress
Introduction: Cord Blomquist, who did a great job moving us from horrible Movable Type to nice nice WordPress, writes: I [Cord] wanted to share a little news with you related to the original work we did for you last year. When ReadyMadeWeb converted your Movable Type blog to WordPress, we got a lot of other requestes for the same service, so we started thinking about a bigger market for such a product. After a bit of research, we started work on automating the data conversion, writing rules, and exceptions to the rules, on how Movable Type and TypePad data could be translated to WordPress. After many months of work, we’re getting ready to announce TP2WP.com , a service that converts Movable Type and TypePad export files to WordPress import files, so anyone who wants to migrate to WordPress can do so easily and without losing permalinks, comments, images, or other files. By automating our service, we’ve been able to drop the price to just $99. I recommend it (and, no, Cord is not paying m
4 0.94571698 873 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-26-Luck or knowledge?
Introduction: Joan Ginther has won the Texas lottery four times. First, she won $5.4 million, then a decade later, she won $2million, then two years later $3million and in the summer of 2010, she hit a $10million jackpot. The odds of this has been calculated at one in eighteen septillion and luck like this could only come once every quadrillion years. According to Forbes, the residents of Bishop, Texas, seem to believe God was behind it all. The Texas Lottery Commission told Mr Rich that Ms Ginther must have been ‘born under a lucky star’, and that they don’t suspect foul play. Harper’s reporter Nathanial Rich recently wrote an article about Ms Ginther, which calls the the validity of her ‘luck’ into question. First, he points out, Ms Ginther is a former math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics. More at Daily Mail. [Edited Saturday] In comments, C Ryan King points to the original article at Harper’s and Bill Jefferys to Wired .
Introduction: I was updating my Mac and noticed the following: Lots of obscure European languages there. That got me wondering: what’s the least obscure language not on the above list? Igbo? Swahili? Or maybe Tagalog? I did a quick google and found this list of languages by number of native speakers. Once you see the list, the answer is obvious: Hindi, first language of 295 million people, is not on Apple’s list. The next most popular languages not included: Bengali, Punjabi, Javanese, Wu, Telegu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu. Wow: most of these are Indian! Then comes Persian and a bunch of others. It turns out that Tagalog, Igbo, and Swahili, are way down on this list with 28 million, 24 million, and 26 million native speakers, respectively. Only 26 million for Swahili? This made me want to check the list of languages by total number of speakers . The ranking of most of the languages isn’t much different, but Swahili is now #10, at 140 million. Hindi and Bengali are still th
same-blog 6 0.9227255 904 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-13-My wikipedia edit
7 0.917521 76 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-09-Both R and Stata
8 0.9169271 253 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-03-Gladwell vs Pinker
9 0.9110465 1718 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-11-Toward a framework for automatic model building
10 0.86869073 436 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-Quality control problems at the New York Times
11 0.86833328 1547 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-25-College football, voting, and the law of large numbers
14 0.83425426 759 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-11-“2 level logit with 2 REs & large sample. computational nightmare – please help”
15 0.82965004 276 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Don’t look at just one poll number–unless you really know what you’re doing!
16 0.82296848 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
17 0.82205021 305 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-Decision science vs. social psychology
18 0.80920291 515 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-13-The Road to a B
19 0.80919039 1586 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-21-Readings for a two-week segment on Bayesian modeling?
20 0.79826957 769 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-15-Mr. P by another name . . . is still great!