andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1099 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Check out comment #9 here . All we need is for Steven Levitt, David Runciman, and some Reader in Management somewhere to weigh in and we’ll be all set.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 All we need is for Steven Levitt, David Runciman, and some Reader in Management somewhere to weigh in and we’ll be all set. [sent-2, score-0.833]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('runciman', 0.475), ('weigh', 0.433), ('levitt', 0.316), ('management', 0.314), ('steven', 0.277), ('reader', 0.271), ('somewhere', 0.267), ('check', 0.209), ('david', 0.193), ('comment', 0.178), ('set', 0.149), ('need', 0.133), ('ll', 0.12)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1099 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Approaching harmonic convergence
Introduction: Check out comment #9 here . All we need is for Steven Levitt, David Runciman, and some Reader in Management somewhere to weigh in and we’ll be all set.
Introduction: Steven Levitt writes :. Diamond often would fall asleep in seminars, often for large chunks of time. What was amazing, however, is that he would open his eyes and then make by far the most insightful comment of the entire seminar! Now that we have n=2 [see the first part of the title of this blog entry], I’m wondering . . . maybe this sort of thing is more common than Levitt and I had realized. P.S. Levitt also writes: The one thing that puzzles me [Levitt] is why in the world would he want to be on the Board of the Federal Reserve? One thing economists just don’t understand are people’s preferences. To get meta here for a moment . . . just as Levitt can’t understand Diamond’s preferences, I find it extremely difficult to understand that Levitt is puzzled by Diamond’s desire to serve on the Federal Reserve, It’s obvious, no? Diamond has expertise on macroeconomics and, I assume, some strong and well-informed opinions on monetary policy; the Federal Reserve determ
Introduction: In the interview we discussed a couple months ago, Steven Levitt said: I [Levitt] voted for Obama [in 2008] because I wanted to tell my grandchildren that I voted for Obama. And I thought that he would be the greatest president in history. This surprised me. I’d assumed Levitt was a McCain supporter! Why? Because in October, 2008, he wrote that he “loved” the claim by conservative University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan that “the current unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is not alarming.” I’d read that at the time, perhaps incorrectly, as Mulligan making an election-season pitch that the economy was doing just fine (Mulligan: “if you are not employed by the financial industry (94 percent of you are not), don’t worry”) hence implicitly an argument for a Republican vote in that year (given the usual rules of retrospective voting that the incumbent party gets punished by a poor economy). And I correspondingly (and, it seems, incorrectly) read Levitt’s endorsement of Mu
4 0.21089268 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
Introduction: A friend/colleague sent me some comments on my recent article with Kaiser Fung on Freakonomics. My friend gave several reasons why he thought we were unfair to Levitt. I’ll give my reply (my friend preferred that I not quote his email, but you can get a general sense of the questions from my answers). But first let me point you to my original post, Freakonomics 2: What went wrong? , from a couple years ago, in which I raised many of the points that ultimately went into our article. And here’s my recent note. (I numbered my points, but the email I was replying to was not numbered. This is not a point-by-point rebuttal to anything but rather just a series of remarks.) 1. Both Kaiser and I are big fans of Freakonomics. It’s only because Levitt can (and has) done better, that we’re sad when he doesn’t live up to his own high standards. If we didn’t convey this sense of respect in our American Scientist article, that is our failing. 2. I think it was at best tacky and
5 0.17421521 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
Introduction: Responding to journalist Elizabeth Kolbert’s negative review of Freakonomics 2 in the New Yorker, Stephen Dubner writes , that, although they do not have any training in climate science, it’s also the case that: Neither of us [Levitt and Dubner] were Ku Klux Klan members either, or sumo wrestlers or Realtors or abortion providers or schoolteachers or even pimps. And yet somehow we managed to write about all that without any horse dung (well, not much at least) flying our way. But Levitt is a schoolteacher (at the University of Chicago)! And, of course, you don’t have to be a sumo wrestler to be (some kind of an) expert on sumo wrestling, nor do you have to teach in the K-12 system to be an expert in education, nor do you have to provide abortions to be an expert on abortion, etc. And Levitt has had quite a bit of horse dung thrown at him for the abortion research. The connection is that abortion and climate change matter to a lot of people, while sumo wrestling and pimps and
6 0.13320576 1491 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-10-Update on Levitt paper on child car seats
7 0.12208664 1060 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-15-Freakonomics: What went wrong?
8 0.11736853 1456 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-13-Macro, micro, and conflicts of interest
9 0.11497681 1581 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-17-Horrible but harmless?
10 0.10818891 809 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-19-“One of the easiest ways to differentiate an economist from almost anyone else in society”
11 0.099016868 1632 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-20-Who exactly are those silly academics who aren’t as smart as a Vegas bookie?
12 0.079569221 1692 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Freakonomics Experiments
13 0.076853871 1223 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-20-A kaleidoscope of responses to Dubner’s criticisms of our criticisms of Freaknomics
14 0.07167995 1652 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-03-“The Case for Inductive Theory Building”
15 0.069324635 1843 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-05-The New York Times Book of Mathematics
16 0.06870649 1180 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-22-I’m officially no longer a “rogue”
17 0.068137266 1083 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-The quals and the quants
18 0.066909246 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
19 0.063240424 181 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-MCMC in Python
20 0.063144013 434 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-28-When Small Numbers Lead to Big Errors
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.05), (1, -0.025), (2, -0.024), (3, 0.026), (4, -0.003), (5, -0.017), (6, 0.028), (7, -0.011), (8, 0.03), (9, 0.018), (10, -0.014), (11, -0.007), (12, 0.001), (13, 0.016), (14, -0.076), (15, -0.007), (16, -0.057), (17, 0.079), (18, 0.002), (19, 0.076), (20, -0.042), (21, -0.017), (22, 0.073), (23, -0.046), (24, 0.042), (25, -0.106), (26, 0.087), (27, 0.028), (28, 0.132), (29, -0.063), (30, 0.023), (31, -0.008), (32, -0.083), (33, 0.011), (34, -0.056), (35, 0.052), (36, -0.037), (37, 0.029), (38, -0.014), (39, -0.014), (40, 0.002), (41, -0.047), (42, -0.02), (43, -0.005), (44, 0.01), (45, -0.02), (46, -0.047), (47, -0.031), (48, -0.012), (49, 0.02)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97471178 1099 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Approaching harmonic convergence
Introduction: Check out comment #9 here . All we need is for Steven Levitt, David Runciman, and some Reader in Management somewhere to weigh in and we’ll be all set.
Introduction: Steven Levitt writes :. Diamond often would fall asleep in seminars, often for large chunks of time. What was amazing, however, is that he would open his eyes and then make by far the most insightful comment of the entire seminar! Now that we have n=2 [see the first part of the title of this blog entry], I’m wondering . . . maybe this sort of thing is more common than Levitt and I had realized. P.S. Levitt also writes: The one thing that puzzles me [Levitt] is why in the world would he want to be on the Board of the Federal Reserve? One thing economists just don’t understand are people’s preferences. To get meta here for a moment . . . just as Levitt can’t understand Diamond’s preferences, I find it extremely difficult to understand that Levitt is puzzled by Diamond’s desire to serve on the Federal Reserve, It’s obvious, no? Diamond has expertise on macroeconomics and, I assume, some strong and well-informed opinions on monetary policy; the Federal Reserve determ
3 0.83697683 1692 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Freakonomics Experiments
Introduction: Stephen Dubner writes : Freakonomics Experiments is a set of simple experiments about complex issues—whether to break up with your significant other, quit your job, or start a diet, just to name a few. . . . a collaboration between researchers at the University of Chicago, Freakonomics, and—we hope!—you. Steve Levitt and John List, of the University of Chicago, run the experimental and statistical side of things. Stephen Dubner, Steve Levitt, and the Freakonomics staff have given these experiments the Freakonomics twist you’re used to. Once you flip the coin, you become a member of the most important part of the collaboration, the Freakonomics Experiments team. Without your participation, we couldn’t complete any of this research. . . . You’ll choose a question that you are facing today, such as whether to quit your job or buy a house. Then you’ll provide us some background information about yourself. After that, you’ll flip the coin to find out what you should do in your situati
4 0.83535194 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
Introduction: A friend/colleague sent me some comments on my recent article with Kaiser Fung on Freakonomics. My friend gave several reasons why he thought we were unfair to Levitt. I’ll give my reply (my friend preferred that I not quote his email, but you can get a general sense of the questions from my answers). But first let me point you to my original post, Freakonomics 2: What went wrong? , from a couple years ago, in which I raised many of the points that ultimately went into our article. And here’s my recent note. (I numbered my points, but the email I was replying to was not numbered. This is not a point-by-point rebuttal to anything but rather just a series of remarks.) 1. Both Kaiser and I are big fans of Freakonomics. It’s only because Levitt can (and has) done better, that we’re sad when he doesn’t live up to his own high standards. If we didn’t convey this sense of respect in our American Scientist article, that is our failing. 2. I think it was at best tacky and
5 0.8166241 1060 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-15-Freakonomics: What went wrong?
Introduction: Kaiser and I tell the story . Regular readers will be familiar with much of this material. We kept our article short because of space restrictions at American Scientist magazine. Now I want to do a follow-up with all the good stories that we had to cut. P.S. Let me remind everyone once again that Freakonomics (the book and the blog) has some great stuff. Kaiser and I are only picking on Levitt & co. because we know they could do so much better. P.P.S. Just to emphasize: our point that Freakonomics has mistakes is nothing new—see, for example, the articles and blogs by Felix Salmon, Ariel Rubenstein, John DiNardo, and Daniel Davies. The contribution of our new article is explore how it was that all these mistakes happened, to juxtapose the many strengths of the Freakonomics franchise (much of the work described in the first book but also a lot of what appears on their blog) with its failings. In some ways these contrasts are characteristic of social science research in
6 0.81605232 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
10 0.66017467 1180 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-22-I’m officially no longer a “rogue”
11 0.64718491 1491 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-10-Update on Levitt paper on child car seats
12 0.6076594 1456 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-13-Macro, micro, and conflicts of interest
13 0.54422808 993 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-05-The sort of thing that gives technocratic reasoning a bad name
14 0.50463545 339 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-13-Battle of the NYT opinion-page economists
15 0.50007606 622 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-21-A possible resolution of the albedo mystery!
16 0.46938217 74 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-08-“Extreme views weakly held”
17 0.42342559 809 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-19-“One of the easiest ways to differentiate an economist from almost anyone else in society”
18 0.41602767 943 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-04-Flip it around
19 0.41347048 13 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-30-Things I learned from the Mickey Kaus for Senate campaign
20 0.40579671 1192 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-02-These people totally don’t know what Chance magazine is all about
topicId topicWeight
[(24, 0.051), (59, 0.066), (73, 0.408), (99, 0.253)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.91375792 1099 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Approaching harmonic convergence
Introduction: Check out comment #9 here . All we need is for Steven Levitt, David Runciman, and some Reader in Management somewhere to weigh in and we’ll be all set.
2 0.85908711 655 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-10-“Versatile, affordable chicken has grown in popularity”
Introduction: Awhile ago I was cleaning out the closet and found some old unread magazines. Good stuff. As we’ve discussed before , lots of things are better read a few years late. Today I was reading the 18 Nov 2004 issue of the London Review of Books, which contained (among other things) the following: - A review by Jenny Diski of a biography of Stanley Milgram. Diski appears to want to debunk: Milgram was a whiz at devising sexy experiments, but barely interested in any theoretical basis for them. They all have the same instant attractiveness of style, and then an underlying emptiness. Huh? Michael Jordan couldn’t hit the curveball and he was reportedly an easy mark for golf hustlers but that doesn’t diminish his greatness on the basketball court. She also criticizes Milgram for being “no help at all” for solving international disputes. OK, fine. I haven’t solved any international disputes either. Milgram, though, . . . he conducted an imaginative experiment whose results stu
3 0.85215569 1925 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-04-“Versatile, affordable chicken has grown in popularity”
Introduction: From two years ago : Awhile ago I was cleaning out the closet and found some old unread magazines. Good stuff. As we’ve discussed before , lots of things are better read a few years late. Today I was reading the 18 Nov 2004 issue of the London Review of Books, which contained (among other things) the following: - A review by Jenny Diski of a biography of Stanley Milgram. Diski appears to want to debunk: Milgram was a whiz at devising sexy experiments, but barely interested in any theoretical basis for them. They all have the same instant attractiveness of style, and then an underlying emptiness. Huh? Michael Jordan couldn’t hit the curveball and he was reportedly an easy mark for golf hustlers but that doesn’t diminish his greatness on the basketball court. She also criticizes Milgram for being “no help at all” for solving international disputes. OK, fine. I haven’t solved any international disputes either. Milgram, though, . . . he conducted an imaginative exp
4 0.81240851 379 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-29-Could someone please set this as the new R default in base graphics?
Introduction: par (mar=c(3,3,2,1), mgp=c(2,.7,0), tck=-.01) Thank you.
5 0.80098605 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.
6 0.77227098 917 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-20-Last post on Hipmunk
7 0.76299572 497 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-02-Hipmunk update
8 0.74425387 794 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-09-The quest for the holy graph
9 0.73235524 1748 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-04-PyStan!
10 0.72575808 280 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-16-Meet Hipmunk, a really cool flight-finder that doesn’t actually work
11 0.71466947 7 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Should Mister P be allowed-encouraged to reside in counter-factual populations?
12 0.68021178 2020 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-12-Samplers for Big Science: emcee and BAT
13 0.67428708 161 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-24-Differences in color perception by sex, also the Bechdel test for women in movies
14 0.67203641 573 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-14-Hipmunk < Expedia, again
15 0.6708771 2325 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-07-Stan users meetup next week
16 0.64622575 2124 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-05-Stan (quietly) passes 512 people on the users list
17 0.64364541 1511 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-26-What do statistical p-values mean when the sample = the population?
18 0.63429284 894 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-07-Hipmunk FAIL: Graphics without content is not enough
19 0.63408405 55 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-27-In Linux, use jags() to call Jags instead of using bugs() to call OpenBugs
20 0.62433475 798 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-12-Sometimes a graph really is just ugly