andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-977 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Everybody knows how you can lie with statistics by manipulating numbers, making inappropriate comparisons, misleading graphs, etc. But, as I like to remind students, the simplest way to lie with statistics is to just lie! You see this all the time, advocates who make up numbers or present numbers with such little justification that they might as well be made up (as in this purported survey of the “super-rich”). Here I’m not talking about the innumeracy of a Samantha Power or a David Runciman, or Michael Barone-style confusion or Gregg Easterbrook-style cluelessness or even Tucker Carlson-style asininity . No, I’m talking about flat-out lying by a professional who has the numbers and deliberately chooses to misrepresent them. The culprit is pollster Doug Schoen, and the catch was made by Jay Livingston. Schoen wrote the following based on a survey he took of Occupy Wall Street participants: On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polli
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Everybody knows how you can lie with statistics by manipulating numbers, making inappropriate comparisons, misleading graphs, etc. [sent-1, score-0.211]
2 But, as I like to remind students, the simplest way to lie with statistics is to just lie! [sent-2, score-0.138]
3 You see this all the time, advocates who make up numbers or present numbers with such little justification that they might as well be made up (as in this purported survey of the “super-rich”). [sent-3, score-0.425]
4 No, I’m talking about flat-out lying by a professional who has the numbers and deliberately chooses to misrepresent them. [sent-5, score-0.209]
5 The culprit is pollster Doug Schoen, and the catch was made by Jay Livingston. [sent-6, score-0.115]
6 Schoen wrote the following based on a survey he took of Occupy Wall Street participants: On Oct. [sent-7, score-0.143]
7 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. [sent-8, score-0.156]
8 Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. [sent-10, score-0.154]
9 Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. [sent-11, score-0.486]
10 Unfortunately for Schoen, he made the mistake of sharing his data with Azi Paybarah, who posted the raw numbers: What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? [sent-15, score-0.151]
11 Here is Schoen in the WSJ: Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. [sent-17, score-0.592]
12 Here is the actual question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Government has a moral responsibility to guarantee healthcare, college education, and a secure retirement for all. [sent-18, score-0.464]
13 As careful survey researchers know, even slight changes in wording can affect responses. [sent-20, score-0.357]
14 And including or omitting “no matter the cost” is hardly a slight change. [sent-21, score-0.182]
15 As evidence for the extreme radicalism of the protestors, Schoen says, By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, Schoen doesn’t bother to mention that this isn’t much different from what you’d find outside Zucotti Park. [sent-22, score-0.506]
16 Recent polls by Pew and Gallup find support for increased taxes on the wealthy ($250,000 or more) at 67%. [sent-23, score-0.196]
17 (Given the small sample size of the Zucotti poll, 67% may be within the margin of error. [sent-24, score-0.093]
18 I could be charitable and label these last two errors as accidental: perhaps Schoen is so out of it that he did not actually realize that most Americans support higher taxes on the rich, and perhaps he did not bother to read the wording of his own survey item on health care attitudes. [sent-26, score-0.754]
19 But the first mistake—labeling the group as supporting “radical redistribution of wealth” when his own survey reported only 4% with that opinion—that’s just flat-out unethical. [sent-27, score-0.315]
20 Spin is bad enough—I’d think that the job of a pollster is to get the numbers and then leave the misleading manipulations to others—but to me this seems worse than mere spin. [sent-29, score-0.329]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('schoen', 0.474), ('occupy', 0.192), ('radical', 0.178), ('redistribution', 0.172), ('zucotti', 0.149), ('survey', 0.143), ('numbers', 0.141), ('lie', 0.138), ('wealth', 0.135), ('wall', 0.121), ('taxes', 0.119), ('pollster', 0.115), ('wording', 0.109), ('street', 0.108), ('tax', 0.106), ('slight', 0.105), ('secure', 0.103), ('retirement', 0.097), ('guarantee', 0.096), ('margin', 0.093), ('responsibility', 0.093), ('gallup', 0.092), ('movement', 0.089), ('polling', 0.088), ('health', 0.084), ('bother', 0.081), ('care', 0.08), ('support', 0.077), ('matter', 0.077), ('moral', 0.075), ('misleading', 0.073), ('radicalism', 0.068), ('segment', 0.068), ('azi', 0.068), ('comprises', 0.068), ('misinterpret', 0.068), ('misrepresent', 0.068), ('paybarah', 0.068), ('protesters', 0.068), ('shady', 0.068), ('wealthiest', 0.068), ('represent', 0.065), ('overhaul', 0.064), ('gop', 0.064), ('affordable', 0.064), ('party', 0.063), ('mistake', 0.062), ('accidental', 0.061), ('charitable', 0.061), ('wsj', 0.061)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000002 977 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Hack pollster Doug Schoen illustrates a general point: The #1 way to lie with statistics is . . . to just lie!
Introduction: Everybody knows how you can lie with statistics by manipulating numbers, making inappropriate comparisons, misleading graphs, etc. But, as I like to remind students, the simplest way to lie with statistics is to just lie! You see this all the time, advocates who make up numbers or present numbers with such little justification that they might as well be made up (as in this purported survey of the “super-rich”). Here I’m not talking about the innumeracy of a Samantha Power or a David Runciman, or Michael Barone-style confusion or Gregg Easterbrook-style cluelessness or even Tucker Carlson-style asininity . No, I’m talking about flat-out lying by a professional who has the numbers and deliberately chooses to misrepresent them. The culprit is pollster Doug Schoen, and the catch was made by Jay Livingston. Schoen wrote the following based on a survey he took of Occupy Wall Street participants: On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polli
2 0.44600508 985 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-01-Doug Schoen has 2 poll reports
Introduction: According to Chris Wilson , there are two versions of the report of the Occupy Wall Street poll from so-called hack pollster Doug Schoen. Here’s the report that Azi Paybarah says that Schoen sent to him, and here’s the final question from the poll: And here’s what’s on Schoen’s own website: Very similar, except for that last phrase, “no matter what the cost.” I have no idea which was actually asked to the survey participants, but it’s a reminder of the difficulties of public opinion research—sometimes you don’t even know what question was asked! I’m not implying anything sinister on Schoen’s part, it’s just interesting to see these two documents floating around. P.S. More here from Kaiser Fung on fundamental flaws with Schoen’s poll.
3 0.16261168 1444 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-05-Those darn conservative egalitarians
Introduction: Nadia Hassan writes: In your review of the Jacobs and Page book, you argued that while there was an open question of whether government could give voters what they wanted in light of the tax increases they might accept, Jacobs and Page were pretty persuasive about targeted tax hikes and specific programs especially against the freeloader view. Recent discussions, and some focus groups bear out these points exactly. The link is from a report by Stan Greenberg, James Carville, and Erica Seifert. I suppose if you ask Doug Schoen to make up some data, you’ll get a different story.
4 0.14704251 1579 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-16-Hacks, maps, and moon rocks: Recent items in the sister blog
Introduction: 1. Oh no . . . Obama is doooooomed!!!!!!!!!!! (Don’t worry, it’s just Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talking) 2. Red-blue maps for different slices of the population 3. Picasso paintings, moon rocks, and hand-written Beatles lyrics
5 0.12189267 666 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-18-American Beliefs about Economic Opportunity and Income Inequality
Introduction: Leslie McCall spoke in the sociology department here the other day to discuss changes in attitudes about income inequality as well as changes in attitudes about attitudes about income inequality. (That is, she talked about what survey respondents say, and she talked about what scholars have said about what survey respondents say.) On the plus side, the talk was interesting. On the downside, I had to leave right at the start of the discussion so I didn’t have a chance to ask my questions. So I’m placing them below. I can’t find a copy of McCall’s slides so I’ll link to this recent op-ed she wrote on the topic of “Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care?” Her title was “Americans Aren’t Naive,” and she wrote: Understanding what Americans think about rising income inequality has been hampered by three problems. First, polls rarely ask specifically about income inequality. They ask instead about government redistributive polices, such as taxes and welfare, which are not alw
6 0.12065964 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
7 0.11496201 532 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-23-My Wall Street Journal story
8 0.11489609 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
10 0.10881293 761 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-A survey’s not a survey if they don’t tell you how they did it
11 0.1048558 1640 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-26-What do people do wrong? WSJ columnist is looking for examples!
12 0.10290363 2167 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-10-Do you believe that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”?
13 0.10105585 276 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Don’t look at just one poll number–unless you really know what you’re doing!
14 0.099692345 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
15 0.096458778 1348 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-27-Question 17 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
16 0.095142707 366 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-24-Mankiw tax update
17 0.095041886 1349 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-28-Question 18 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
19 0.090450741 673 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-Upper-income people still don’t realize they’re upper-income
20 0.087309815 2261 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-23-Greg Mankiw’s utility function
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.156), (1, -0.084), (2, 0.112), (3, 0.003), (4, -0.011), (5, 0.032), (6, -0.034), (7, 0.04), (8, -0.03), (9, -0.032), (10, -0.008), (11, -0.074), (12, -0.036), (13, 0.104), (14, -0.01), (15, -0.007), (16, 0.009), (17, 0.037), (18, 0.002), (19, 0.02), (20, 0.035), (21, 0.008), (22, -0.004), (23, 0.027), (24, -0.085), (25, -0.004), (26, -0.008), (27, -0.014), (28, -0.017), (29, 0.02), (30, 0.005), (31, 0.016), (32, 0.008), (33, 0.048), (34, -0.045), (35, 0.02), (36, -0.017), (37, -0.043), (38, 0.002), (39, 0.013), (40, 0.038), (41, 0.03), (42, 0.032), (43, 0.006), (44, 0.007), (45, -0.002), (46, -0.009), (47, -0.034), (48, -0.006), (49, 0.022)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96260554 977 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Hack pollster Doug Schoen illustrates a general point: The #1 way to lie with statistics is . . . to just lie!
Introduction: Everybody knows how you can lie with statistics by manipulating numbers, making inappropriate comparisons, misleading graphs, etc. But, as I like to remind students, the simplest way to lie with statistics is to just lie! You see this all the time, advocates who make up numbers or present numbers with such little justification that they might as well be made up (as in this purported survey of the “super-rich”). Here I’m not talking about the innumeracy of a Samantha Power or a David Runciman, or Michael Barone-style confusion or Gregg Easterbrook-style cluelessness or even Tucker Carlson-style asininity . No, I’m talking about flat-out lying by a professional who has the numbers and deliberately chooses to misrepresent them. The culprit is pollster Doug Schoen, and the catch was made by Jay Livingston. Schoen wrote the following based on a survey he took of Occupy Wall Street participants: On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polli
2 0.76184529 385 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Wacky surveys where they don’t tell you the questions they asked
Introduction: Maria Wolters writes: The parenting club Bounty, which distributes their packs through midwives, hospitals, and large UK supermarket and pharmacy chains, commissioned a fun little survey for Halloween from the company OnePoll . Theme: Mothers as tricksters – tricking men into fathering their babies. You can find a full smackdown courtesy of UK-based sex educator and University College London psychologist Petra Boynton here . (One does wonder how a parenting club with such close links to the UK National Health Service thought a survey on this topic was at all appropriate, but that’s another rant.) So far, so awful, but what I [Wolters] thought might grab your attention was the excuse OnePoll offered for their work in their email to Petra. (Petra is very well known in the UK, and so was able to get a statement from the polling company.) Here it is in its full glory, taken from Petra’s post: As the agency which commissioned this research and distributed the resulting new
3 0.76171446 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
Introduction: From my New York Times blog today, here’s an example of how contemporaneous poll results can be given exactly opposite interpretations. Recently in the New Republic, William Galston shared some recent findings from Gallup: Respondents were asked to categorize three economic objectives as extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. Here’s what they said: Extremely/very important Somewhat/not important Grow and expand the economy 82 18 Increase equality of opportunity for people to get ahead 70 30 Reduce the income and wealth gap between the rich and the poor 46 54 When Gallup asked a sample of Americans in 1998 whether the gap between the rich and the poor was a problem that needed t
Introduction: A reporter emailed me the other day with a question about a case I’d never heard of before, a company called Herbalife that is being accused of being a pyramid scheme. The reporter pointed me to this document which describes a survey conducted by “a third party firm called Lieberman Research”: Two independent studies took place using real time (aka “river”) sampling, in which respondents were intercepted across a wide array of websites Sample size of 2,000 adults 18+ matched to U.S. census on age, gender, income, region and ethnicity “River sampling” in this case appears to mean, according to the reporter, that “people were invited into it through online ads.” The survey found that 5% of U.S. households had purchased Herbalife products during the past three months (with a “0.8% margin of error,” ha ha ha). They they did a multiplication and a division to estimate that only 8% of households who bought these products were Herbalife distributors: 480,000 active distributor
5 0.73846197 666 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-18-American Beliefs about Economic Opportunity and Income Inequality
Introduction: Leslie McCall spoke in the sociology department here the other day to discuss changes in attitudes about income inequality as well as changes in attitudes about attitudes about income inequality. (That is, she talked about what survey respondents say, and she talked about what scholars have said about what survey respondents say.) On the plus side, the talk was interesting. On the downside, I had to leave right at the start of the discussion so I didn’t have a chance to ask my questions. So I’m placing them below. I can’t find a copy of McCall’s slides so I’ll link to this recent op-ed she wrote on the topic of “Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care?” Her title was “Americans Aren’t Naive,” and she wrote: Understanding what Americans think about rising income inequality has been hampered by three problems. First, polls rarely ask specifically about income inequality. They ask instead about government redistributive polices, such as taxes and welfare, which are not alw
6 0.73188883 2167 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-10-Do you believe that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”?
7 0.73077589 673 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-Upper-income people still don’t realize they’re upper-income
8 0.73033589 761 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-A survey’s not a survey if they don’t tell you how they did it
9 0.72915459 130 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-A False Consensus about Public Opinion on Torture
10 0.71921623 1437 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-Paying survey respondents
11 0.70028073 1388 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-22-Americans think economy isn’t so bad in their city but is crappy nationally and globally
12 0.68904012 985 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-01-Doug Schoen has 2 poll reports
13 0.68523258 1455 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-12-Probabilistic screening to get an approximate self-weighted sample
14 0.68418849 100 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-19-Unsurprisingly, people are more worried about the economy and jobs than about deficits
15 0.67664266 645 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-04-Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
16 0.6738404 2019 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-12-Recently in the sister blog
17 0.67080539 1386 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-21-Belief in hell is associated with lower crime rates
18 0.66546464 1313 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-11-Question 1 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
19 0.66508567 1145 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-30-A tax on inequality, or a tax to keep inequality at the current level?
20 0.66495687 1288 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-29-Clueless Americans think they’ll never get sick
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.028), (16, 0.054), (21, 0.034), (23, 0.095), (24, 0.078), (45, 0.034), (47, 0.012), (55, 0.02), (56, 0.012), (63, 0.033), (64, 0.076), (72, 0.018), (82, 0.032), (86, 0.036), (98, 0.014), (99, 0.274)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95241392 977 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Hack pollster Doug Schoen illustrates a general point: The #1 way to lie with statistics is . . . to just lie!
Introduction: Everybody knows how you can lie with statistics by manipulating numbers, making inappropriate comparisons, misleading graphs, etc. But, as I like to remind students, the simplest way to lie with statistics is to just lie! You see this all the time, advocates who make up numbers or present numbers with such little justification that they might as well be made up (as in this purported survey of the “super-rich”). Here I’m not talking about the innumeracy of a Samantha Power or a David Runciman, or Michael Barone-style confusion or Gregg Easterbrook-style cluelessness or even Tucker Carlson-style asininity . No, I’m talking about flat-out lying by a professional who has the numbers and deliberately chooses to misrepresent them. The culprit is pollster Doug Schoen, and the catch was made by Jay Livingston. Schoen wrote the following based on a survey he took of Occupy Wall Street participants: On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polli
Introduction: I was reading this article by Ariel Levy in the New Yorker and noticed something suspicious. Levy was writing about an event in 1979 and then continued: One year later, Ronald Reagan won the Presidency, with overwhelming support from evangelicals. The evangelical vote has been a serious consideration in every election since. From Chapter 6 of Red State, Blue State : According to the National Election Study, Reagan did quite a bit worse than Carter among evangelical Protestants than among voters as a whole–no surprise, really, given that Reagan was not particularly religious and Cater was an evangelical himself. It was 1992, not 1980, when evangelicals really started to vote Republican. What’s it all about? I wouldn’t really blame Ariel Levy for this mistake; a glance at her website reveals a lot of experience as a writer and culture reporter but not much on statistics or politics. That’s fine by me: there’s a reason I subscribe to the New Yorker and not
3 0.93825656 203 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-John McPhee, the Anti-Malcolm
Introduction: This blog is threatening to turn into Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, Social Science, and Literature Criticism, but I’m just going to go with the conversational flow, so here’s another post about an essayist. I’m not a big fan of Janet Malcolm’s essays — and I don’t mean I don’t like her attitude or her pro-murderer attitude, I mean I don’t like them all that much as writing. They’re fine, I read them, they don’t bore me, but I certainly don’t think she’s “our” best essayist. But that’s not a debate I want to have right now, and if I did I’m quite sure most of you wouldn’t want to read it anyway. So instead, I’ll just say something about John McPhee. As all right-thinking people agree, in McPhee’s long career he has written two kinds of books: good, short books, and bad, long books. (He has also written many New Yorker essays, and perhaps other essays for other magazines too; most of these are good, although I haven’t seen any really good recent work from him, and so
Introduction: Joe Blitzstein and Xiao-Li Meng write : An e ffectively designed examination process goes far beyond revealing students’ knowledge or skills. It also serves as a great teaching and learning tool, incentivizing the students to think more deeply and to connect the dots at a higher level. This extends throughout the entire process: pre-exam preparation, the exam itself, and the post-exam period (the aftermath or, more appropriately, afterstat of the exam). As in the publication process, the first submission is essential but still just one piece in the dialogue. Viewing the entire exam process as an extended dialogue between students and faculty, we discuss ideas for making this dialogue induce more inspiration than perspiration, and thereby making it a memorable deep-learning triumph rather than a wish-to-forget test-taking trauma. We illustrate such a dialogue through a recently introduced course in the Harvard Statistics Department, Stat 399: Problem Solving in Statistics, and tw
5 0.92931497 1410 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-09-Experimental work on market-based or non-market-based incentives
Introduction: Mark Patterson writes: I found a discussion at the Boston Review that I thought you’d be interested in, given your posts on the potentially dubious foundations of many neoclassical economics models. Michael Sandel cites a few examples of markets crowding out moral behavior. His longest discussion regards Frey and Oberholzer-Gee’s work demonstrating Swiss citizens’ willingness to admit a nuclear waste facility to town decreasing when offered monetary incentives. It seems like this is a situation that really demands a discussion of the available empirical evidence (Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini have two papers, “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay At All” and “A Fine is a Price” that seem especially relevant.) While the essay has sparked the usual sort of libertarian response, I’m struck by the fact that most people aren’t talking about the experimental work that’s actually available—it seems like this is the best way forward. My reply: I don’t have much to add here, but this sort
6 0.92797691 1058 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-14-Higgs bozos: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are spinning in their graves
7 0.92618656 2216 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-18-Florida backlash
8 0.92533648 1513 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-Estimating seasonality with a data set that’s just 52 weeks long
9 0.9235059 578 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-17-Credentialism, elite employment, and career aspirations
10 0.92317796 11 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-29-Auto-Gladwell, or Can fractals be used to predict human history?
11 0.92208099 1590 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-I need a title for my book on ethics and statistics!!
13 0.91555458 532 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-23-My Wall Street Journal story
14 0.91168702 453 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-07-Biostatistics via Pragmatic and Perceptive Bayes.
15 0.91143358 985 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-01-Doug Schoen has 2 poll reports
16 0.91124511 731 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-26-Lottery probability update
17 0.9112401 1169 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-15-Charles Murray on the new upper class
18 0.91064394 2021 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-Swiss Jonah Lehrer
19 0.91061902 2173 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-15-Postdoc involving pathbreaking work in MRP, Stan, and the 2014 election!
20 0.90925765 724 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-21-New search engine for data & statistics