andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-982 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Kaiser Fung points to the above self-canceling statement which comes from a quantitatively-trained expert on international debt. I can only assume that he was speaking quickly and that the reporter didn’t know enough to ask him to clarify. When I’m interviewed, I emit a lot of ums, uhs, and probably quite a few meaningless remarks, but usually whoever is interviewing me knows to just keep the good stuff. As Kaiser points out, the above quote could mean two completely opposite things! In context I’m sure it was clear to the speaker but it’s not at all obvious what’s going on in the published version. Again, I’m not blaming the expert here, it’s just a miscommunication that got into the article, something that Kaiser noticed (and that I care about) because of our interest in probability communication. In any case, the line “at least as much as an 80 percent chance” should join “ But viewed in retrospect, it is clear that it has been quite predictable ” in the Probability Hall
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Kaiser Fung points to the above self-canceling statement which comes from a quantitatively-trained expert on international debt. [sent-1, score-0.136]
2 I can only assume that he was speaking quickly and that the reporter didn’t know enough to ask him to clarify. [sent-2, score-0.087]
3 When I’m interviewed, I emit a lot of ums, uhs, and probably quite a few meaningless remarks, but usually whoever is interviewing me knows to just keep the good stuff. [sent-3, score-0.649]
4 As Kaiser points out, the above quote could mean two completely opposite things! [sent-4, score-0.127]
5 In context I’m sure it was clear to the speaker but it’s not at all obvious what’s going on in the published version. [sent-5, score-0.19]
6 Again, I’m not blaming the expert here, it’s just a miscommunication that got into the article, something that Kaiser noticed (and that I care about) because of our interest in probability communication. [sent-6, score-0.492]
7 In any case, the line “at least as much as an 80 percent chance” should join “ But viewed in retrospect, it is clear that it has been quite predictable ” in the Probability Hall of Fame. [sent-7, score-0.562]
8 I was curious about the background of Kenneth Rogoff (the source of the above quote) so I looked him up and found this mini-autobiography, which for some reason irritated me. [sent-10, score-0.106]
9 I’m not sure if it was the odd line about his parents being “true liberals” or the exhaustive detail about the various newspapers and books that reprinted his old chess games. [sent-11, score-0.756]
10 I can’t fault the guy for bragging—in some ways, this entire blog is a big brag—but there was something about the tone of Rogoff’s bragging that put me off. [sent-12, score-0.476]
11 My favorite part was where he mentions that he finished 13th in a chess tournament in 1976—he is oddly precise and lists his place as “tied for 13th-15th”—but qualifies this by explaining that he played only in the summers, unlike the other players who were full-time professionals. [sent-13, score-1.133]
12 I have to admit, if I’d ever been good enough in a sport to finish 13th in a major tournament, I’d probably find a way to work it onto my webpage too. [sent-14, score-0.514]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('bragging', 0.287), ('kaiser', 0.231), ('tournament', 0.231), ('rogoff', 0.231), ('chess', 0.205), ('emit', 0.144), ('miscommunication', 0.144), ('expert', 0.136), ('brag', 0.135), ('qualifies', 0.135), ('reprinted', 0.135), ('sport', 0.129), ('exhaustive', 0.129), ('quote', 0.127), ('blaming', 0.121), ('interviewing', 0.115), ('finish', 0.109), ('kenneth', 0.109), ('irritated', 0.106), ('meaningless', 0.106), ('mentions', 0.104), ('hall', 0.104), ('speaker', 0.104), ('line', 0.104), ('whoever', 0.101), ('tone', 0.1), ('newspapers', 0.099), ('predictable', 0.098), ('summers', 0.098), ('interviewed', 0.097), ('oddly', 0.097), ('finished', 0.096), ('onto', 0.095), ('lists', 0.093), ('quite', 0.092), ('liberals', 0.092), ('probably', 0.091), ('probability', 0.091), ('viewed', 0.091), ('join', 0.091), ('tied', 0.091), ('webpage', 0.09), ('played', 0.089), ('fault', 0.089), ('retrospect', 0.089), ('fung', 0.087), ('reporter', 0.087), ('clear', 0.086), ('odd', 0.084), ('players', 0.083)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
Introduction: Kaiser Fung points to the above self-canceling statement which comes from a quantitatively-trained expert on international debt. I can only assume that he was speaking quickly and that the reporter didn’t know enough to ask him to clarify. When I’m interviewed, I emit a lot of ums, uhs, and probably quite a few meaningless remarks, but usually whoever is interviewing me knows to just keep the good stuff. As Kaiser points out, the above quote could mean two completely opposite things! In context I’m sure it was clear to the speaker but it’s not at all obvious what’s going on in the published version. Again, I’m not blaming the expert here, it’s just a miscommunication that got into the article, something that Kaiser noticed (and that I care about) because of our interest in probability communication. In any case, the line “at least as much as an 80 percent chance” should join “ But viewed in retrospect, it is clear that it has been quite predictable ” in the Probability Hall
2 0.16852212 648 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-04-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
Introduction: No joke. See here (from Kaiser Fung). At the Statistics Forum.
3 0.15456696 1638 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-25-Diving chess
Introduction: Knowing of my interest in Turing run-around-the-house chess , David Lockhart points me to this : Diving Chess is a chess variant, which is played in a swimming pool. Instead of using chess clocks, each player must submerge themselves underwater during their turn, only to resurface when they are ready to make a move. Players must make a move within 5 seconds of resurfacing (they will receive a warning if not, and three warnings will result in a forfeit). Diving Chess was invented by American Chess Master Etan Ilfeld; the very first exhibition game took place between Ilfeld and former British Chess Champion William Hartston at the Thirdspace gym in Soho on August 2nd, 2011. Hartston won the match which lasted almost two hours such that each player was underwater for an entire hour.
4 0.14956515 2031 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-19-What makes a statistician look like a hero?
Introduction: Answer here (courtesy of Kaiser Fung).
5 0.14703403 615 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-16-Chess vs. checkers
Introduction: Mark Palko writes : Chess derives most of its complexity through differentiated pieces; with checkers the complexity comes from the interaction between pieces. The result is a series of elegant graph problems where the viable paths change with each move of your opponent. To draw an analogy with chess, imagine if moving your knight could allow your opponent’s bishop to move like a rook. Add to that the potential for traps and manipulation that come with forced capture and you have one of the most remarkable games of all time. . . . It’s not unusual to hear masters of both chess and checkers (draughts) to admit that they prefer the latter. So why does chess get all the respect? Why do you never see a criminal mastermind or a Bond villain playing in a checkers tournament? Part of the problem is that we learn the game as children so we tend to think of it as a children’s game. We focus on how simple the rules are and miss how much complexity and subtlety you can get out of those ru
6 0.13209312 1473 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-28-Turing chess run update
7 0.12973841 388 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-The placebo effect in pharma
8 0.12749945 2186 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Infoviz on top of stat graphic on top of spreadsheet
9 0.12748535 1899 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-14-Turing chess tournament!
10 0.12348963 1132 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-A counterfeit data graphic
11 0.12300571 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
12 0.12239386 2105 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-18-What’s my Kasparov number?
14 0.12148446 1805 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-16-Memo to Reinhart and Rogoff: I think it’s best to admit your errors and go on from there
15 0.11556883 1001 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Three hours in the life of a statistician
16 0.11047193 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
17 0.11008663 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
18 0.10746059 1914 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-25-Is there too much coauthorship in economics (and science more generally)? Or too little?
19 0.10651278 461 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-“‘Why work?’”
20 0.10420828 1835 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-02-7 ways to separate errors from statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.136), (1, -0.064), (2, -0.019), (3, 0.045), (4, 0.006), (5, -0.046), (6, 0.062), (7, 0.025), (8, 0.04), (9, -0.024), (10, -0.036), (11, -0.022), (12, -0.012), (13, -0.011), (14, -0.081), (15, -0.012), (16, -0.044), (17, 0.116), (18, 0.023), (19, -0.016), (20, -0.02), (21, 0.085), (22, -0.011), (23, -0.027), (24, 0.014), (25, 0.05), (26, -0.01), (27, 0.039), (28, -0.036), (29, -0.067), (30, 0.028), (31, -0.108), (32, 0.021), (33, 0.084), (34, 0.043), (35, -0.07), (36, 0.004), (37, -0.029), (38, 0.01), (39, -0.014), (40, -0.032), (41, 0.12), (42, 0.07), (43, -0.008), (44, -0.001), (45, -0.016), (46, 0.042), (47, 0.002), (48, 0.001), (49, -0.012)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95266896 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
Introduction: Kaiser Fung points to the above self-canceling statement which comes from a quantitatively-trained expert on international debt. I can only assume that he was speaking quickly and that the reporter didn’t know enough to ask him to clarify. When I’m interviewed, I emit a lot of ums, uhs, and probably quite a few meaningless remarks, but usually whoever is interviewing me knows to just keep the good stuff. As Kaiser points out, the above quote could mean two completely opposite things! In context I’m sure it was clear to the speaker but it’s not at all obvious what’s going on in the published version. Again, I’m not blaming the expert here, it’s just a miscommunication that got into the article, something that Kaiser noticed (and that I care about) because of our interest in probability communication. In any case, the line “at least as much as an 80 percent chance” should join “ But viewed in retrospect, it is clear that it has been quite predictable ” in the Probability Hall
2 0.69785637 1001 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Three hours in the life of a statistician
Introduction: Kaiser Fung tells what it’s really like . Here’s a sample: As soon as I [Kaiser] put the substring-concatenate expression together with two lines of code that generate data tables, it choked. Sorta like Dashiell Hammett without the broads and the heaters. And here’s another take, from a slightly different perspective.
3 0.69779199 2186 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Infoviz on top of stat graphic on top of spreadsheet
Introduction: Kaiser points to this infoviz from MIT’s Technology Review: Kaiser writes: What makes the designer want to tilt the reader’s head? This chart is unreadable. It also fails the self-sufficiency test. All 13 data points are printed onto the chart. You really don’t need the axis, and the gridlines. A further design flaw is the use of signposts. Our eyes are drawn to the hexagons containing the brand icons but the data is at the other end of the signpost, where it is planted on the surface! Here is a sketch of something not as cute: I [Kaiser] expressed time as years . . . The mobile-related entities are labelled red. The dots could be replaced by the hexagonal brand icons. I agree with all of Kaiser’s criticisms, and I agree that his graph is, from the statistical perspective, a zillion times better than what was published. On the other hand, unusual images can get attention. Recall the famous/notorious clock plot from Florence Nightingale . This is why I’ve move
4 0.69579846 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
Introduction: Kaiser nails it . The offending article , by John Tierney, somehow ended up in the Science section rather than the Opinion section. As an opinion piece (or, for that matter, a blog), Tierney’s article would be nothing special. But I agree with Kaiser that it doesn’t work as a newspaper article. As Kaiser notes, this story involves a bunch of statistical and empirical claims that are not well resolved by P.R. and rhetoric.
5 0.69048035 461 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-“‘Why work?’”
Introduction: Tyler Cowen links to a “scary comparison” that claims that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.” Kaiser Fung looks into this comparison in more detail. As Kaiser puts it: If we concede that the middle-income person would end up with less disposable income than the lower-income person, then we’d expect that the middle-income people will take lower-paying jobs so as to increase their disposable income. But I have not seen reports of such reverse social mobility. Theory needs to fit reality. This hole in the theory needs to be covered. This argument sounds convincing at first, but I’m not completely sure it’s right. I’d just like to expand on one of Kaiser’s other points, which is that people don’t usually have a choice between a minimum-wage job and a $60,000 job. Also, my impression is that higher-paying jobs are more pleasant than lower-paying jobs. Let me put it another w
6 0.68067425 2031 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-19-What makes a statistician look like a hero?
7 0.66724557 1256 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Our data visualization panel at the New York Public Library
8 0.648808 615 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-16-Chess vs. checkers
9 0.64725763 388 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-The placebo effect in pharma
10 0.64627945 1174 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-18-Not as ugly as you look
11 0.6340186 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
12 0.62931061 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
13 0.62546325 742 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-02-Grouponomics, counterfactuals, and opportunity cost
14 0.61710054 570 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-12-Software request
15 0.61565644 1473 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-28-Turing chess run update
16 0.6153205 2121 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-02-Should personal genetic testing be regulated? Battle of the blogroll
17 0.60938734 1467 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-23-The pinch-hitter syndrome again
19 0.60607702 2105 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-18-What’s my Kasparov number?
20 0.59411126 218 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-I think you knew this already
topicId topicWeight
[(8, 0.011), (9, 0.037), (15, 0.073), (16, 0.098), (21, 0.041), (24, 0.095), (31, 0.014), (42, 0.01), (65, 0.027), (66, 0.044), (70, 0.101), (73, 0.011), (74, 0.014), (76, 0.067), (85, 0.031), (86, 0.018), (96, 0.017), (99, 0.195)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.92267108 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
Introduction: Kaiser Fung points to the above self-canceling statement which comes from a quantitatively-trained expert on international debt. I can only assume that he was speaking quickly and that the reporter didn’t know enough to ask him to clarify. When I’m interviewed, I emit a lot of ums, uhs, and probably quite a few meaningless remarks, but usually whoever is interviewing me knows to just keep the good stuff. As Kaiser points out, the above quote could mean two completely opposite things! In context I’m sure it was clear to the speaker but it’s not at all obvious what’s going on in the published version. Again, I’m not blaming the expert here, it’s just a miscommunication that got into the article, something that Kaiser noticed (and that I care about) because of our interest in probability communication. In any case, the line “at least as much as an 80 percent chance” should join “ But viewed in retrospect, it is clear that it has been quite predictable ” in the Probability Hall
2 0.87910235 1979 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Convincing Evidence
Introduction: Keith O’Rourke and I wrote an article that begins: Textbooks on statistics emphasize care and precision, via concepts such as reliability and validity in measurement, random sampling and treatment assignment in data collection, and causal identification and bias in estimation. But how do researchers decide what to believe and what to trust when choosing which statistical methods to use? How do they decide the credibility of methods? Statisticians and statistical practitioners seem to rely on a sense of anecdotal evidence based on personal experience and on the attitudes of trusted colleagues. Authorship, reputation, and past experience are thus central to decisions about statistical procedures. It’s for a volume on theoretical or methodological research on authorship, functional roles, reputation, and credibility in social media, edited by Sorin Matei and Elisa Bertino.
3 0.87685001 1329 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-18-Those mean psychologists, making fun of dodgy research!
Introduction: Two people separately sent me this amusing mock-research paper by Brian A. Nosek (I assume that’s what’s meant by “Arina K. Bones”). The article is pretty funny, but this poster (by Nosek and Samuel Gosling) is even better! Check it out: I remarked that this was almost as good as my zombies paper, and my correspondent pointed me to this page of (I assume) Nosek’s research on aliens. P.S. I clicked through to take the test to see if I’m dead or alive, but I got bored after a few minutes. I gotta say, if Gosling can come up with a 10-item measure of the Big Five, this crew should be able to come up with a reasonably valid alive-or-dead test that doesn’t require dozens and dozens of questions!
4 0.86155713 1850 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-10-The recursion of pop-econ
Introduction: Dave Berri posted the following at the Freakonomics blog: The “best” picture of 2012 was Argo. At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . In other words, this choice is made by the “experts.” There is, though, another group that we could have listened to on Sunday night. That group would be the people who actually spend money to go to the movies. . . . According to that group, Marvel’s the Avengers was the “best” picture in 2012. With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. And when we look at world-wide revenues, this film brought in more than $1.5 billion. . . . Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. Perhaps this is just because I am an econo
5 0.85474896 32 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-14-Causal inference in economics
Introduction: Aaron Edlin points me to this issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives that focuses on statistical methods for causal inference in economics. (Michael Bishop’s page provides some links .) To quickly summarize my reactions to Angrist and Pischke’s book: I pretty much agree with them that the potential-outcomes or natural-experiment approach is the most useful way to think about causality in economics and related fields. My main amendments to Angrist and Pischke would be to recognize that: 1. Modeling is important, especially modeling of interactions . It’s unfortunate to see a debate between experimentalists and modelers. Some experimenters (not Angrist and Pischke) make the mistake of avoiding models: Once they have their experimental data, they check their brains at the door and do nothing but simple differences, not realizing how much more can be learned. Conversely, some modelers are unduly dismissive of experiments and formal observational studies, forgetting t
6 0.85455114 1657 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-06-Lee Nguyen Tran Kim Song Shimazaki
7 0.85302746 777 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-23-Combining survey data obtained using different modes of sampling
8 0.85101259 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
9 0.85091889 1835 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-02-7 ways to separate errors from statistics
10 0.84837806 994 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-06-Josh Tenenbaum presents . . . a model of folk physics!
11 0.84656405 922 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-Economists don’t think like accountants—but maybe they should
12 0.84655499 1097 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-03-Libertarians in Space
13 0.84645605 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
14 0.84633815 608 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-12-Single or multiple imputation?
16 0.8442831 2246 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-13-An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data
17 0.84243178 814 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-The powerful consumer?
18 0.84241581 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
19 0.84174162 116 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-29-How to grab power in a democracy – in 5 easy non-violent steps
20 0.84170973 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science