andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-920 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I was just thinking about this because we seem to be circling around the same few topics over and over (while occasionally slipping in some new statistical ideas): 10. Wegman 9. Hipmunk 8. Dennis the dentist 7. Freakonomics 6. The difference between significant and non-significant is not itself statistically significant 5. Just use a hierarchical model already! 4. Innumerate journalists who think that presidential elections are just like high school 3. A graph can be pretty but convey essentially no information 2. Stan is coming 1. Clippy! Did I miss anything important?
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I was just thinking about this because we seem to be circling around the same few topics over and over (while occasionally slipping in some new statistical ideas): 10. [sent-1, score-1.045]
2 The difference between significant and non-significant is not itself statistically significant 5. [sent-6, score-0.743]
3 Innumerate journalists who think that presidential elections are just like high school 3. [sent-9, score-0.826]
4 A graph can be pretty but convey essentially no information 2. [sent-10, score-0.618]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('circling', 0.309), ('clippy', 0.295), ('hipmunk', 0.27), ('dentist', 0.258), ('significant', 0.247), ('dennis', 0.234), ('miss', 0.217), ('wegman', 0.209), ('freakonomics', 0.204), ('convey', 0.195), ('occasionally', 0.186), ('journalists', 0.184), ('presidential', 0.181), ('elections', 0.166), ('topics', 0.151), ('essentially', 0.144), ('stan', 0.142), ('hierarchical', 0.141), ('statistically', 0.136), ('school', 0.126), ('coming', 0.122), ('graph', 0.113), ('difference', 0.113), ('ideas', 0.108), ('already', 0.104), ('thinking', 0.099), ('high', 0.097), ('around', 0.093), ('anything', 0.093), ('information', 0.086), ('seem', 0.085), ('important', 0.083), ('pretty', 0.08), ('model', 0.065), ('use', 0.063), ('statistical', 0.063), ('new', 0.059), ('like', 0.036), ('think', 0.036)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 920 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-22-Top 10 blog obsessions
Introduction: I was just thinking about this because we seem to be circling around the same few topics over and over (while occasionally slipping in some new statistical ideas): 10. Wegman 9. Hipmunk 8. Dennis the dentist 7. Freakonomics 6. The difference between significant and non-significant is not itself statistically significant 5. Just use a hierarchical model already! 4. Innumerate journalists who think that presidential elections are just like high school 3. A graph can be pretty but convey essentially no information 2. Stan is coming 1. Clippy! Did I miss anything important?
2 0.19230893 1072 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-19-“The difference between . . .”: It’s not just p=.05 vs. p=.06
Introduction: The title of this post by Sanjay Srivastava illustrates an annoying misconception that’s crept into the (otherwise delightful) recent publicity related to my article with Hal Stern, he difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. When people bring this up, they keep referring to the difference between p=0.05 and p=0.06, making the familiar (and correct) point about the arbitrariness of the conventional p-value threshold of 0.05. And, sure, I agree with this, but everybody knows that already. The point Hal and I were making was that even apparently large differences in p-values are not statistically significant. For example, if you have one study with z=2.5 (almost significant at the 1% level!) and another with z=1 (not statistically significant at all, only 1 se from zero!), then their difference has a z of about 1 (again, not statistically significant at all). So it’s not just a comparison of 0.05 vs. 0.06, even a differenc
3 0.17838424 497 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-02-Hipmunk update
Introduction: Florence from customer support at Hipmunk writes: Hipmunk now includes American Airlines in our search results. Please note that users will be taken directly to AA.com to complete the booking/transaction. . . . we are steadily increasing the number of flights that we offer on Hipmunk. As you may recall, Hipmunk is a really cool flight-finder that didn’t actually work (as of 16 Sept 2010). At the time, I was a bit annoyed at the NYT columnist who plugged Hipmunk without actually telling his readers that the site didn’t actually do the job. (I discovered the problem myself because I couldn’t believe that my flight options to Raleigh-Durham were really so meager, so I checked on Expedia and found a good flight.) I do think Hipmunk’s graphics are beautiful, though, so I’m rooting for them to catch up. P.S. Apparently they include Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains, so I’ll give them a try, next time I travel. The regular Amtrak website is about as horrible as you’d expect.
4 0.1620357 2238 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Hipmunk worked
Introduction: In the past I’ve categorized Hipmunk as a really cool flight-finder that doesn’t actually work , as worse than Expedia , and as graphics without content . So, I thought it would be only fair to tell you that I bought a flight the other day using Hipmunk and it gave me the same flight as Expedia but at a lower cost (by linking to something called CheapOair, which I hope is legit). So score one for Hipmunk.
5 0.15183204 917 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-20-Last post on Hipmunk
Introduction: There was some confusion on my last try , so let me explain one more time . . . The flights I where Hipmunk failed (see here for background) were not obscure itineraries. One of them was a nonstop from New York to Cincinnati; another was from NY to Durham, North Carolina; and yet another was a trip to Midway in Chicago. In that last case, Hipmunk showed no nonstops at all—which will come as a surprise to the passengers on the Southwest Airlines flight I was on a couple days ago! In these cases, Hipmunk didn’t even do the courtesy of flashing a message telling me to try elsewhere. I don’t understand. How hard would it be for the program to automatically do a Kayak search and find all the flights? Hipmunk’s graphics are great, though. Lee Wilkinson reports: Check out the figure below from The Grammar of Graphics. Dan Rope invented this graphic and programmed it in Java in the late 1990′s. We shopped this graph around to Orbitz and Expedia but they weren’t interested. So I
6 0.13925061 280 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-16-Meet Hipmunk, a really cool flight-finder that doesn’t actually work
7 0.11750475 1692 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Freakonomics Experiments
8 0.11526566 894 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-07-Hipmunk FAIL: Graphics without content is not enough
9 0.11450726 1000 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter?
10 0.11245007 899 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-10-The statistical significance filter
11 0.1122869 766 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-Last Wegman post (for now)
12 0.11062301 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
13 0.10499433 728 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-24-A (not quite) grand unified theory of plagiarism, as applied to the Wegman case
14 0.10331918 2138 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-18-In Memoriam Dennis Lindley
17 0.090215296 751 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-08-Another Wegman plagiarism
18 0.08967942 1223 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-20-A kaleidoscope of responses to Dubner’s criticisms of our criticisms of Freaknomics
19 0.089230016 878 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-Infovis, infographics, and data visualization: Where I’m coming from, and where I’d like to go
20 0.088477269 1695 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-28-Economists argue about Bayes
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.123), (1, 0.009), (2, -0.004), (3, 0.026), (4, 0.049), (5, -0.035), (6, -0.028), (7, -0.048), (8, -0.032), (9, -0.021), (10, -0.037), (11, 0.032), (12, -0.02), (13, -0.06), (14, -0.006), (15, -0.031), (16, 0.002), (17, 0.042), (18, 0.043), (19, 0.026), (20, -0.048), (21, -0.001), (22, -0.01), (23, -0.019), (24, 0.074), (25, -0.068), (26, 0.067), (27, -0.076), (28, -0.05), (29, -0.058), (30, 0.046), (31, 0.021), (32, 0.073), (33, -0.015), (34, -0.025), (35, 0.114), (36, -0.179), (37, -0.076), (38, -0.043), (39, -0.047), (40, -0.088), (41, -0.069), (42, -0.028), (43, -0.02), (44, -0.051), (45, -0.067), (46, -0.034), (47, -0.039), (48, -0.007), (49, -0.014)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94193536 920 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-22-Top 10 blog obsessions
Introduction: I was just thinking about this because we seem to be circling around the same few topics over and over (while occasionally slipping in some new statistical ideas): 10. Wegman 9. Hipmunk 8. Dennis the dentist 7. Freakonomics 6. The difference between significant and non-significant is not itself statistically significant 5. Just use a hierarchical model already! 4. Innumerate journalists who think that presidential elections are just like high school 3. A graph can be pretty but convey essentially no information 2. Stan is coming 1. Clippy! Did I miss anything important?
2 0.63716209 280 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-16-Meet Hipmunk, a really cool flight-finder that doesn’t actually work
Introduction: Brendan pointed me to this news article by David Pogue promoting a website called Hipmunk , a sleek competitor to Travelocity, Expedia, Kayak, and the like. Coincidentally, I had to a buy a flight right now so I followed the link and found that, indeed, Hipmunk is about a zillion times easier to use and more impressive than Expedia or even Kayak. It’s awesome. The others aren’t even close. The display was so clean and effective, I felt like ordering a few flights just for fun. That’s the good news. Now the bad news. I wasn’t just playing around with the site. There was actually a flight I wanted to buy–an itinerary I’d looked into yesterday but hadn’t saved or booked. I effortlessly set up the request in Hipmunk, scanned its impressive graphical display, and . . . couldn’t find the flight I wanted! Oh no! The last ticket must’ve been sold! Just to check, though, I want on good old ugly Expedia. And my flight was right there! So I bought it. So, just a quick memo
3 0.63470101 917 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-20-Last post on Hipmunk
Introduction: There was some confusion on my last try , so let me explain one more time . . . The flights I where Hipmunk failed (see here for background) were not obscure itineraries. One of them was a nonstop from New York to Cincinnati; another was from NY to Durham, North Carolina; and yet another was a trip to Midway in Chicago. In that last case, Hipmunk showed no nonstops at all—which will come as a surprise to the passengers on the Southwest Airlines flight I was on a couple days ago! In these cases, Hipmunk didn’t even do the courtesy of flashing a message telling me to try elsewhere. I don’t understand. How hard would it be for the program to automatically do a Kayak search and find all the flights? Hipmunk’s graphics are great, though. Lee Wilkinson reports: Check out the figure below from The Grammar of Graphics. Dan Rope invented this graphic and programmed it in Java in the late 1990′s. We shopped this graph around to Orbitz and Expedia but they weren’t interested. So I
4 0.63118631 2238 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Hipmunk worked
Introduction: In the past I’ve categorized Hipmunk as a really cool flight-finder that doesn’t actually work , as worse than Expedia , and as graphics without content . So, I thought it would be only fair to tell you that I bought a flight the other day using Hipmunk and it gave me the same flight as Expedia but at a lower cost (by linking to something called CheapOair, which I hope is legit). So score one for Hipmunk.
5 0.62308085 497 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-02-Hipmunk update
Introduction: Florence from customer support at Hipmunk writes: Hipmunk now includes American Airlines in our search results. Please note that users will be taken directly to AA.com to complete the booking/transaction. . . . we are steadily increasing the number of flights that we offer on Hipmunk. As you may recall, Hipmunk is a really cool flight-finder that didn’t actually work (as of 16 Sept 2010). At the time, I was a bit annoyed at the NYT columnist who plugged Hipmunk without actually telling his readers that the site didn’t actually do the job. (I discovered the problem myself because I couldn’t believe that my flight options to Raleigh-Durham were really so meager, so I checked on Expedia and found a good flight.) I do think Hipmunk’s graphics are beautiful, though, so I’m rooting for them to catch up. P.S. Apparently they include Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains, so I’ll give them a try, next time I travel. The regular Amtrak website is about as horrible as you’d expect.
6 0.57933545 894 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-07-Hipmunk FAIL: Graphics without content is not enough
7 0.5222829 573 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-14-Hipmunk < Expedia, again
8 0.52182072 1072 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-19-“The difference between . . .”: It’s not just p=.05 vs. p=.06
9 0.47231472 751 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-08-Another Wegman plagiarism
10 0.46379009 156 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-20-Burglars are local
11 0.45154983 728 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-24-A (not quite) grand unified theory of plagiarism, as applied to the Wegman case
13 0.4456771 933 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-30-More bad news: The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals
14 0.44265434 310 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-The winner’s curse
15 0.43841299 1692 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Freakonomics Experiments
16 0.4373039 1971 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-07-I doubt they cheated
17 0.42441362 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
18 0.42136493 2035 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-23-Scalable Stan
19 0.41806325 2291 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-Transitioning to Stan
20 0.40539593 2161 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-07-My recent debugging experience
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.057), (9, 0.021), (16, 0.046), (24, 0.186), (42, 0.032), (59, 0.033), (73, 0.043), (91, 0.23), (99, 0.214)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.92022395 920 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-22-Top 10 blog obsessions
Introduction: I was just thinking about this because we seem to be circling around the same few topics over and over (while occasionally slipping in some new statistical ideas): 10. Wegman 9. Hipmunk 8. Dennis the dentist 7. Freakonomics 6. The difference between significant and non-significant is not itself statistically significant 5. Just use a hierarchical model already! 4. Innumerate journalists who think that presidential elections are just like high school 3. A graph can be pretty but convey essentially no information 2. Stan is coming 1. Clippy! Did I miss anything important?
2 0.89608037 1186 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-27-Confusion from illusory precision
Introduction: When I posted this link to Dean Foster’s rants, some commenters pointed out this linked claim by famed statistician/provacateur Bjorn Lomberg: If [writes Lomborg] you reduce your child’s intake of fruits and vegetables by just 0.03 grams a day (that’s the equivalent of half a grain of rice) when you opt for more expensive organic produce, the total risk of cancer goes up, not down. Omit buying just one apple every 20 years because you have gone organic, and your child is worse off. Let’s unpack Lomborg’s claim. I don’t know anything about the science of pesticides and cancer, but can he really be so sure that the effects are so small as to be comparable to the health effects of eating “just one apple every 20 years”? I can’t believe you could estimate effects to anything like that precision. I can’t believe anyone has such a precise estimate of the health effects of pesticides, and also I can’t believe anyone has such a precise effect of the health effect of eating an app
3 0.88581753 637 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Unfinished business
Introduction: This blog by J. Robert Lennon on abandoned novels made me think of the more general topic of abandoned projects. I seem to recall George V. Higgins writing that he’d written and discarded 14 novels or so before publishing The Friends of Eddie Coyle. I haven’t abandoned any novels but I’ve abandoned lots of research projects (and also have started various projects that there’s no way I’ll finish). If you think about the decisions involved, it really has to be that way. You learn while you’re working on a project whether it’s worth continuing. Sometimes I’ve put in the hard work and pushed a project to completion, published the article, and then I think . . . what was the point? The modal number of citations of our articles is zero, etc.
4 0.88083065 476 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-19-Google’s word count statistics viewer
Introduction: Word count stats from the Google books database prove that Bayesianism is expanding faster than the universe. A n-gram is a tuple of n words.
5 0.85825104 53 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-Tumors, on the left, or on the right?
Introduction: In response to the post The bane of many causes in the context of mobile phone use and brain cancer, Robert Erikson wrote: The true control here is the side of the head of the tumor: same side as phone use or opposite side. If that is the test, the data from the study are scary. Clearly tumors are more likely on the “same” side, at whatever astronomical p value you want to use. That cannot be explained away by misremembering, since an auxiliary study showed misremembering was not biased toward cell phone-tumor consistency. A strong signal in the data pointed by Prof. Erikson is that the tumors are overwhelmingly likelier to appear on the same side of the head as where the phone is held. I’ve converted the ratios into percentages, based on an assumption that the risk for tumors would be apriori equal for both sides of the head. There is a group of people with low-to-moderate exposure and high lateral bias, but the bias does increase quite smoothly with increasing
6 0.84083545 1753 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Stan 1.2.0 and RStan 1.2.0
7 0.84019446 736 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-29-Response to “Why Tables Are Really Much Better Than Graphs”
8 0.83989549 1528 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-10-My talk at MIT on Thurs 11 Oct
11 0.77428323 1365 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-04-Question 25 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
12 0.77098352 2296 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-19-Index or indicator variables
13 0.76665223 931 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-29-Hamiltonian Monte Carlo stories
14 0.76458144 1219 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-18-Tips on “great design” from . . . Microsoft!
16 0.76202154 1748 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-04-PyStan!
17 0.75920999 801 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-On the half-Cauchy prior for a global scale parameter
18 0.75790882 197 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The last great essayist?
20 0.75745165 1367 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-05-Question 26 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys