andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1143 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I spoke at the University of Kansas the other day. Kansas is far away so I gave the talk by video. We did it using a G+ hangout, and it worked really well, much much better than when I gave a talk via Skype . With G+, I could see and hear the audience clearly, and they could hear me just fine while seeing my slides (or my face, I went back and forth). Not as good as a live presentation but pretty good, considering. P.S. And here’s how to do it! Conflict of interest disclaimer: I was paid by Google last year to give a short course.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I spoke at the University of Kansas the other day. [sent-1, score-0.186]
2 We did it using a G+ hangout, and it worked really well, much much better than when I gave a talk via Skype . [sent-3, score-1.025]
3 With G+, I could see and hear the audience clearly, and they could hear me just fine while seeing my slides (or my face, I went back and forth). [sent-4, score-1.459]
4 Not as good as a live presentation but pretty good, considering. [sent-5, score-0.453]
5 Conflict of interest disclaimer: I was paid by Google last year to give a short course. [sent-9, score-0.603]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('kansas', 0.446), ('hear', 0.262), ('skype', 0.26), ('gave', 0.24), ('disclaimer', 0.238), ('hangout', 0.238), ('talk', 0.192), ('spoke', 0.186), ('conflict', 0.176), ('slides', 0.172), ('forth', 0.171), ('presentation', 0.152), ('face', 0.15), ('audience', 0.143), ('paid', 0.143), ('live', 0.135), ('google', 0.13), ('via', 0.127), ('seeing', 0.126), ('worked', 0.118), ('clearly', 0.116), ('went', 0.113), ('short', 0.112), ('away', 0.107), ('university', 0.103), ('interest', 0.099), ('fine', 0.099), ('good', 0.095), ('far', 0.093), ('year', 0.09), ('much', 0.088), ('could', 0.084), ('last', 0.083), ('course', 0.082), ('give', 0.076), ('back', 0.076), ('pretty', 0.071), ('better', 0.063), ('well', 0.06), ('using', 0.06), ('really', 0.049), ('see', 0.038)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
Introduction: I spoke at the University of Kansas the other day. Kansas is far away so I gave the talk by video. We did it using a G+ hangout, and it worked really well, much much better than when I gave a talk via Skype . With G+, I could see and hear the audience clearly, and they could hear me just fine while seeing my slides (or my face, I went back and forth). Not as good as a live presentation but pretty good, considering. P.S. And here’s how to do it! Conflict of interest disclaimer: I was paid by Google last year to give a short course.
2 0.23373319 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
Introduction: I just gave a talk in Milan. Actually I was sitting at my desk, it was a g+ hangout which was a bit more convenient for me. The audience was a bunch of astronomers so I figured they could handle a satellite link. . . . Anyway, the talk didn’t go so well. Two reasons: first, it’s just hard to get the connection with the audience without being able to see their faces. Next time I think I’ll try to get several people in the audience to open up their laptops and connect to the hangout, so that I can see a mosaic of faces instead of just a single image from the front of the room. The second problem with the talk was the topic. I asked the people who invited me to choose a topic, and they picked Can we use Bayesian methods to resolve the current crisis of statistically-significant research findings that don’t hold up? But I don’t think this was right for this audience. I think that it would’ve been better to give them the Stan talk or the little data talk or the statistic
3 0.23049819 438 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-I just skyped in from Kentucky, and boy are my arms tired
Introduction: I just gave my first Skype presentation today, and it felt pretty strange. The technical difficulties mostly arose with the sound. There were heavy echoes and so we ended up just cutting off the sound from the audience. This made it more difficult for me because I couldn’t gauge audience reaction. It was a real challenge to give a talk without being able to hear the laughter of the audience. (I asked them to wave their hands every time they laughed, but they didn’t do so–or else they were never laughing, which would be even worse.) Next time I’ll use the telephone for at least one of the sound channels. The visuals were ok from my side–I just went thru my slides one by one, using the cursor to point to things. I prefer standing next to the screen and pointing with my hands. But doing it this way was ok, considering. The real visual problem went the other way: I couldn’t really see the audience. From the perspective of the little computer camera, everyone seemed far away
4 0.21032424 2068 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-G+ hangout for Bayesian Data Analysis course now! (actually, in 5 minutes)
Introduction: Here’s the link . When you’re on the hangout, please mute your own microphone! I’ll have the computer point at the blackboard. You can follow along with the slides: for the first hour for the second hour P.S. Apparently there is some limit on number of hangout participants (see comments). I didn’t know about that! Maybe next time will try “on air” hangout, I will have to learn more about this. Next week the teaching asst will do the course so no hangout, then in two weeks there is no class because it’s the day after Halloween and that’s a holiday around here. So we’ll resume this on Fri 8 Nov. See you then! P.P.S. Those of you who were able to join the hangout: Could you please let me know how the visual and sound quality were? Thanks.
5 0.18961769 548 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-What goes around . . .
Introduction: A few weeks ago I delivered a 10-minute talk on statistical graphics that went so well, it was the best-received talk I’ve ever given. The crowd was raucous. Then some poor sap had to go on after me. He started by saying that my talk was a hard act to follow. And, indeed, the audience politely listened but did not really get involved in his presentation. Boy did I feel smug. More recently I gave a talk on Stan, at an entirely different venue. And this time the story was the exact opposite. Jim Demmel spoke first and gave a wonderful talk on optimization for linear algebra (it was an applied math conference). Then I followed, and I never really grabbed the crowd. My talk was not a disaster but it didn’t really work. This was particularly frustrating because I’m really excited about Stan and this was a group of researchers I wouldn’t usually have a chance to reach. It was the plenary session at the conference. Anyway, now I know how that guy felt from last month. My talk
6 0.18033284 1673 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-My talk last night at the visualization meetup
7 0.1794437 1242 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-03-Best lottery story ever
8 0.17190512 2100 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-14-BDA class G+ hangout another try
9 0.16438547 2346 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-24-Buzzfeed, Porn, Kansas…That Can’t Be Good
10 0.12937406 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
11 0.12677915 1450 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-My upcoming talk for the data visualization meetup
12 0.12089129 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
13 0.11857812 2207 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-11-My talks in Bristol this Wed and London this Thurs
14 0.11206004 492 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-30-That puzzle-solving feeling
15 0.10467672 2009 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-05-A locally organized online BDA course on G+ hangout?
16 0.10187779 1197 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-“All Models are Right, Most are Useless”
17 0.10128821 1965 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-02-My course this fall on l’analyse bayésienne de données
18 0.099569216 1526 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-09-Little Data: How traditional statistical ideas remain relevant in a big-data world
19 0.096146323 1598 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-30-A graphics talk with no visuals!
20 0.090318836 1798 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-11-Continuing conflict over conflict statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.114), (1, -0.06), (2, -0.053), (3, 0.062), (4, 0.047), (5, 0.024), (6, 0.008), (7, 0.018), (8, -0.014), (9, -0.046), (10, 0.004), (11, 0.032), (12, 0.055), (13, 0.014), (14, 0.017), (15, -0.061), (16, -0.019), (17, -0.053), (18, 0.011), (19, 0.038), (20, -0.11), (21, -0.057), (22, 0.081), (23, -0.059), (24, -0.069), (25, -0.011), (26, -0.126), (27, -0.168), (28, 0.099), (29, -0.024), (30, 0.044), (31, 0.005), (32, 0.007), (33, -0.07), (34, 0.031), (35, -0.038), (36, 0.058), (37, -0.041), (38, 0.009), (39, 0.013), (40, 0.02), (41, -0.027), (42, 0.075), (43, 0.035), (44, -0.016), (45, -0.013), (46, 0.066), (47, 0.039), (48, -0.008), (49, -0.041)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97282815 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
Introduction: I spoke at the University of Kansas the other day. Kansas is far away so I gave the talk by video. We did it using a G+ hangout, and it worked really well, much much better than when I gave a talk via Skype . With G+, I could see and hear the audience clearly, and they could hear me just fine while seeing my slides (or my face, I went back and forth). Not as good as a live presentation but pretty good, considering. P.S. And here’s how to do it! Conflict of interest disclaimer: I was paid by Google last year to give a short course.
2 0.88266778 1598 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-30-A graphics talk with no visuals!
Introduction: So, I’m at MIT, twenty minutes into my talk on tradeoffs in information graphics to the computer scientists, when the power goes out. They had some dim backup lighting so we weren’t all sitting there in the dark, but the projector wasn’t working. So I took questions for the remaining 40 minutes. It went well, perhaps better than the actual talk would’ve gone, even though they didn’t get to see most of my slides .
3 0.8560583 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
Introduction: I just gave a talk in Milan. Actually I was sitting at my desk, it was a g+ hangout which was a bit more convenient for me. The audience was a bunch of astronomers so I figured they could handle a satellite link. . . . Anyway, the talk didn’t go so well. Two reasons: first, it’s just hard to get the connection with the audience without being able to see their faces. Next time I think I’ll try to get several people in the audience to open up their laptops and connect to the hangout, so that I can see a mosaic of faces instead of just a single image from the front of the room. The second problem with the talk was the topic. I asked the people who invited me to choose a topic, and they picked Can we use Bayesian methods to resolve the current crisis of statistically-significant research findings that don’t hold up? But I don’t think this was right for this audience. I think that it would’ve been better to give them the Stan talk or the little data talk or the statistic
4 0.83985412 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
Introduction: I have this great talk on the above topic but nowhere to give it. Here’s the story. Several months ago, I was invited to speak at IEEE VisWeek. It sounded like a great opportunity. The organizer told me that there were typically about 700 people in the audience, and these are people in the visualization community whom I’d like to reach but normally wouldn’t have the opportunity to encounter. It sounded great, but I didn’t want to fly most of the way across the country by myself, so I offered to give the talk by videolink. I was surprised to get a No response: I’d think that a visualization conference, of all things, would welcome a video talk. In the meantime, though, I’d thought a lot about what I’d talk about and had started preparing something. Once I found out I wouldn’t be giving the talk, I channeled the efforts into an article which, with the collaboration of Antony Unwin, was completed about a month ago. It would take very little effort to adapt this graph-laden a
5 0.8362093 1073 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-Not quite getting the point
Introduction: I gave this talk the other day and afterwards, a white guy came up to me and said he thought it was no coincidence that the researcher who made the mistake was “Oriental.” He then went on for about 5 minutes explaining his theory. I couldn’t keep myself from laughing—I had to start coughing into a napkin to hide it.
7 0.8200919 438 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-I just skyped in from Kentucky, and boy are my arms tired
8 0.80798334 548 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-What goes around . . .
9 0.78887498 1673 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-My talk last night at the visualization meetup
10 0.78787726 1821 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-24-My talk midtown this Friday noon (and at Columbia Monday afternoon)
11 0.77961713 2039 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-25-Harmonic convergence
12 0.73080772 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
13 0.69379079 913 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-Groundhog day in August?
14 0.68980086 699 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-06-Another stereotype demolished
15 0.6755181 2323 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-07-Cause he thinks he’s so-phisticated
16 0.66352588 1002 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-“Venetia Orcutt, GWU med school professor, quits after complaints of no-show class”
17 0.64534998 2116 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-28-“Statistics is what people think math is”
18 0.63342953 1451 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-Robert Kosara reviews Ed Tufte’s short course
19 0.63188547 2068 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-G+ hangout for Bayesian Data Analysis course now! (actually, in 5 minutes)
20 0.63171065 1039 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-02-I just flew in from the econ seminar, and boy are my arms tired
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.05), (16, 0.06), (24, 0.14), (44, 0.024), (47, 0.212), (77, 0.021), (86, 0.021), (99, 0.333)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.97655463 275 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Data visualization at the American Evaluation Association
Introduction: Stephanie Evergreen writes: Media, web design, and marketing have all created an environment where stakeholders – clients, program participants, funders – all expect high quality graphics and reporting that effectively conveys the valuable insights from evaluation work. Some in statistics and mathematics have used data visualization strategies to support more useful reporting of complex ideas. Global growing interest in improving communications has begun to take root in the evaluation field as well. But as anyone who has sat through a day’s worth of a conference or had to endure a dissertation-worthy evaluation report knows, evaluators still have a long way to go. To support the development of researchers and evaluators, some members of the American Evaluation Association are proposing a new TIG (Topical Interest Group) on Data Visualization and Reporting. If you are a member of AEA (or want to be) and you are interested in joining this TIG, contact Stephanie Evergreen.
2 0.97226453 1055 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Data sharing update
Introduction: Fred Oswald reports that Sian Beilock sent him sufficient amounts of raw data from her research study so allow him to answer his questions about the large effects that were observed. This sort of collegiality is central to the collective scientific enterprise. The bad news is that IRB’s are still getting in the way. Beilock was very helpful but she had to work within the constraints of her IRB, which apparently advised her not to share data—even if de-identified—without getting lots more permissions. Oswald writes: It is a little concerning that the IRB bars the sharing of de-identified data, particularly in light of the specific guidelines of the journal Science, which appears to say that when you submit a study to the journal for publication, you are allowing for the sharing of de-identified data — unless you expressly say otherwise at the point that you submit the paper for consideration. Again, I don’t blame Beilock and Ramirez—they appear to have been as helpful as
3 0.96565044 95 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-“Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College”
Introduction: Several years ago, I heard about a project at the Educational Testing Service to identify “strivers”: students from disadvantaged backgrounds who did unexpectedly well on the SAT (the college admissions exam formerly known as the “Scholastic Aptitude Test” but apparently now just “the SAT,” in the same way that Exxon is just “Exxon” and that Harry Truman’s middle name is just “S”), at least 200 points above a predicted score based on demographic and neighborhood information. My ETS colleague and I agreed that this was a silly idea: From a statistical point of view, if student A is expected ahead of time to do better than student B, and then they get identical test scores, then you’d expect student A (the non-”striver”) to do better than student B (the “striver”) later on. Just basic statistics: if a student does much better than expected, then probably some of that improvement is noise. The idea of identifying these “strivers” seemed misguided and not the best use of the SAT.
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
Introduction: Remember How to Lie With Statistics? It turns out that the author worked for the cigarette companies. John Mashey points to this, from Robert Proctor’s book, “Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition”: Darrell Huff, author of the wildly popular (and aptly named) How to Lie With Statistics, was paid to testify before Congress in the 1950s and then again in the 1960s, with the assigned task of ridiculing any notion of a cigarette-disease link. On March 22, 1965, Huff testified at hearings on cigarette labeling and advertising, accusing the recent Surgeon General’s report of myriad failures and “fallacies.” Huff peppered his attack with with amusing asides and anecdotes, lampooning spurious correlations like that between the size of Dutch families and the number of storks nesting on rooftops–which proves not that storks bring babies but rather that people with large families tend to have larger houses (which therefore attract more storks).
6 0.95071512 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
7 0.94945115 1261 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-12-The Naval Research Lab
same-blog 8 0.94921613 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
9 0.94662905 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
10 0.94396985 1668 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-11-My talk at the NY data visualization meetup this Monday!
11 0.93294239 1897 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-13-When’s that next gamma-ray blast gonna come, already?
12 0.92004001 716 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-17-Is the internet causing half the rapes in Norway? I wanna see the scatterplot.
13 0.91655868 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
14 0.91567272 1273 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Proposals for alternative review systems for scientific work
15 0.9096241 1349 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-28-Question 18 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
16 0.90958637 1218 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-18-Check your missing-data imputations using cross-validation
17 0.90952885 438 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-I just skyped in from Kentucky, and boy are my arms tired
18 0.90823942 1450 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-My upcoming talk for the data visualization meetup
19 0.90601248 2241 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-Preregistration: what’s in it for you?
20 0.90598619 2322 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-06-Priors I don’t believe