andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1329 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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!
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Two people separately sent me this amusing mock-research paper by Brian A. [sent-1, score-0.419]
2 The article is pretty funny, but this poster (by Nosek and Samuel Gosling) is even better! [sent-4, score-0.264]
3 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. [sent-5, score-0.697]
4 I clicked through to take the test to see if I’m dead or alive, but I got bored after a few minutes. [sent-8, score-0.743]
5 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! [sent-9, score-1.49]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('nosek', 0.467), ('gosling', 0.425), ('dozens', 0.247), ('arina', 0.194), ('bored', 0.183), ('samuel', 0.169), ('bones', 0.169), ('crew', 0.164), ('poster', 0.15), ('remarked', 0.147), ('test', 0.144), ('alive', 0.14), ('assume', 0.139), ('clicked', 0.137), ('zombies', 0.135), ('brian', 0.132), ('correspondent', 0.127), ('separately', 0.121), ('ta', 0.116), ('dead', 0.115), ('amusing', 0.115), ('got', 0.114), ('come', 0.112), ('reasonably', 0.112), ('valid', 0.105), ('meant', 0.1), ('require', 0.099), ('funny', 0.096), ('five', 0.091), ('paper', 0.081), ('measure', 0.08), ('pointed', 0.079), ('check', 0.077), ('sent', 0.076), ('page', 0.072), ('able', 0.068), ('almost', 0.067), ('questions', 0.065), ('big', 0.051), ('take', 0.05), ('doesn', 0.049), ('pretty', 0.047), ('better', 0.042), ('research', 0.038), ('article', 0.038), ('say', 0.037), ('two', 0.036), ('good', 0.032), ('even', 0.029), ('people', 0.026)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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!
2 0.15098128 1959 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-28-50 shades of gray: A research story
Introduction: This is a killer story (from Brian Nosek, Jeffrey Spies, and Matt Motyl). Part 1: Two of the present authors, Motyl and Nosek, share interests in political ideology. We were inspired by the fast growing literature on embodiment that demonstrates surprising links between body and mind (Markman & Brendl, 2005; Proffitt, 2006) to investigate embodiment of political extremism. Participants from the political left, right and center (N = 1,979) completed a perceptual judgment task in which words were presented in different shades of gray. Participants had to click along a gradient representing grays from near black to near white to select a shade that matched the shade of the word. We calculated accuracy: How close to the actual shade did participants get? The results were stunning. Moderates perceived the shades of gray more accurately than extremists on the left and right (p = .01). Our conclusion: political extremists perceive the world in black-and-white, figuratively and literally
3 0.095975146 1090 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-“. . . extending for dozens of pages”
Introduction: Kaiser writes : I have read a fair share of bore-them-to-tears compilation of survey research results – you know, those presentations with one multi-colored, stacked or grouped bar chart after another, extending for dozens of pages. I hate those grouped bar charts also—as I’ve written repeatedly, the central role of almost all statistical displays is to make comparisons, and you can make twice as many comparisons with a line plot as a bar plot. But I suspect the real problem with the reports that Kaiser is talking about is the “extending for dozens of pages” part. If they could just print each individual plot smaller and put dozens on a page, you could maybe get through the whole report in two or three pages. Almost always, graphs are too large. I’ve even seen abominations such as a fifty-page report with a single huge pie chart on each page. As Kaiser says, think about communication! A report with one big pie chart or bar plot per page is like a text document with one w
4 0.090620995 2309 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-28-Crowdstorming a dataset
Introduction: Raphael Silberzahn writes: Brian Nosek, Eric Luis Uhlmann, Dan Martin, and I just launched a project through the Open Science Center we think you’ll find interesting. The basic idea is to “Crowdstorm a Dataset”. Multiple independent analysts are recruited to test the same hypothesis on the same data set in whatever manner they see as best. If everyone comes up with the same results, then scientists can speak with one voice. If not, the subjectivity and conditionality of results on analysis strategy is made transparent. For this first project, we are crowdstorming the question of whether soccer referees are more likely to give red cards to dark skin toned players than light skin toned players. The full project description is here . If you’re interested in being one of the crowdstormer analysts, you can register here . All analysts will receive an author credit on the final paper. We would love to have Bayesian analysts represented in the group. Also, please feel free to let
Introduction: Brendan Nyhan sends me this article from the research-methods all-star team of Katherine Button, John Ioannidis, Claire Mokrysz, Brian Nosek , Jonathan Flint, Emma Robinson, and Marcus Munafo: A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles. I agree completely. In my terminology, with small sample size, the classical approach of looking for statistical significance leads
6 0.077465758 725 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-21-People kept emailing me this one so I think I have to blog something
7 0.074642941 528 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-21-Elevator shame is a two-way street
8 0.073169723 981 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-rms2
9 0.069684699 1842 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-05-Cleaning up science
10 0.068799131 409 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-“Tiny,” “Large,” “Very,” “Nice,” “Dumbest”
12 0.062751748 401 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Silly old chi-square!
13 0.062189773 1705 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-04-Recently in the sister blog
15 0.058887411 2270 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-28-Creating a Lenin-style democracy
16 0.057926081 2279 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-02-Am I too negative?
17 0.053505652 481 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-22-The Jumpstart financial literacy survey and the different purposes of tests
18 0.05170881 1567 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-Election reports
19 0.051633976 519 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-16-Update on the generalized method of moments
20 0.049419455 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.081), (1, -0.027), (2, -0.014), (3, -0.025), (4, 0.009), (5, -0.018), (6, 0.017), (7, -0.013), (8, 0.014), (9, -0.026), (10, 0.018), (11, -0.002), (12, -0.011), (13, -0.019), (14, 0.0), (15, 0.001), (16, 0.01), (17, 0.005), (18, -0.009), (19, -0.021), (20, -0.006), (21, -0.007), (22, 0.029), (23, -0.022), (24, 0.001), (25, -0.022), (26, -0.001), (27, -0.007), (28, 0.019), (29, 0.016), (30, 0.005), (31, -0.01), (32, 0.03), (33, 0.005), (34, 0.002), (35, -0.026), (36, 0.021), (37, -0.027), (38, -0.001), (39, 0.008), (40, 0.041), (41, -0.026), (42, 0.012), (43, 0.027), (44, -0.01), (45, 0.01), (46, 0.014), (47, -0.028), (48, 0.006), (49, 0.008)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96574795 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!
Introduction: In this article , Oliver Sacks talks about his extreme difficulty in recognizing people (even close friends) and places (even extremely familiar locations such as his apartment and his office). After reading this, I started to wonder if I have a very mild case of face-blindness. I’m very good at recognizing places, but I’m not good at faces. And I can’t really visualize faces at all. Like Sacks and some of his correspondents, I often have to do it by cheating, by recognizing certain landmarks that I can remember, thus coding the face linguistically rather than visually. (On the other hand, when thinking about mathematics or statistics, I’m very visual, as readers of this blog can attest.) Anyway, in searching for the link to Sacks’s article, I came across the “ Cambridge Face Memory Test .” My reaction when taking this test was mostly irritation. I just found it annoying to stare at all these unadorned faces, and in my attempt to memorize them, I was trying to use trick
Introduction: Hadley Wickham sent me this , by Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes: In this report we [Baggerly and Coombes] examine several related papers purporting to use microarray-based signatures of drug sensitivity derived from cell lines to predict patient response. Patients in clinical trials are currently being allocated to treatment arms on the basis of these results. However, we show in five case studies that the results incorporate several simple errors that may be putting patients at risk. One theme that emerges is that the most common errors are simple (e.g., row or column offsets); conversely, it is our experience that the most simple errors are common. This is horrible! But, in a way, it’s not surprising. I make big mistakes in my applied work all the time. I mean, all the time. Sometimes I scramble the order of the 50 states, or I’m plotting a pure noise variable, or whatever. But usually I don’t drift too far from reality because I have a lot of cross-checks and I (or my
4 0.68812132 1917 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-28-Econ coauthorship update
Introduction: The other day I posted some remarks on Stan Liebowitz’s analysis of coauthorship in economics. Liebowitz followed up with some more thoughts: I [Liebowitz] am not arguing for an increase or decrease in coauthorship, per se. I would prefer an efficient amount of coauthorship, whatever that is, and certainly it will vary by paper and by field. If you feel you are more productive with many coauthors, that is not in contrast to anything in my paper. My point is that you will pick the correct number of coauthors if you and your coauthors are given 1/n credit (assuming you believe each author contributed equally). If, however, all of the coauthors are given full credit for the paper (and I have evidence that, in economics at least, authors are far more likely to receive full credit than 1/n credit), authors will get credit for more papers if they use more coauthors than would otherwise be best for total research productivity. My criticism is in the inefficiency induced by not using 1/n
5 0.67801571 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
Introduction: Joshua Vogelstein points me to this blog entry by Robert Tucci, diplomatically titled “Unethical or Really Dumb (or both) Scientists from University of Adelaide ‘Rediscover’ My Version of Grover’s Algorithm”: The Chappell et al. paper has 24 references but does not refer to my paper, even though their paper and mine are eerily similar. Compare them yourself. With the excellent Google and ArXiv search engines, I [Tucci] would say there is zero probability that none of its five authors knew about my paper before they wrote theirs. Chappell responds in the comments: Your paper is timestamped 2010; however the results of our paper was initially presented at the Cairns CQIQC conference in July 2008. . . . The intention of our paper is not a research article. It is a tutorial paper. . . . We had not seen your paper before. Our paper is based on the standard Grover search, not a fixed point search. Hence, your paper did not come to our attention, as we were not concerned with
6 0.67682469 1272 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-More proposals to reform the peer-review system
7 0.66850275 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
8 0.66673839 129 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-05-Unrelated to all else
9 0.66513592 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
10 0.66047609 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
11 0.65535319 157 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-21-Roller coasters, charity, profit, hmmm
13 0.65133482 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
15 0.64833099 609 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-13-Coauthorship norms
16 0.64358008 401 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Silly old chi-square!
17 0.63819873 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
18 0.63668394 1982 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-Blaming scientific fraud on the Kuhnians
19 0.63614249 2172 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-14-Advice on writing research articles
20 0.63609213 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.022), (2, 0.04), (15, 0.017), (16, 0.084), (21, 0.023), (24, 0.133), (27, 0.035), (70, 0.232), (77, 0.026), (89, 0.015), (99, 0.24)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93041313 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!
2 0.87721163 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 0.85030431 1657 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-06-Lee Nguyen Tran Kim Song Shimazaki
Introduction: Andrew Lee writes: I am a recent M.A. graduate in sociology. I am primarily qualitative in method but have been moving in a more mixed-methods direction ever since I discovered sports analytics (Moneyball, Football Outsiders, Wages of Wins, etc.). For my thesis I studied Korean-Americans in education in the health professions through a comparison of Asian ethnic representation in Los Angeles-area medical and dental schools. I did this by counting up different Asian ethnic groups at UC Irvine, USC and Loma Linda University’s medical/dental schools using surnames as an identifier (I coded for ethnicity using an algorithm from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries which correlated surnames with ethnicity: http://www.naaccr.org/Research/DataAnalysisTools.aspx). The coding was mostly easy, since “Nguyen” and “Tran” is always Vietnamese, “Kim” and “Song” is Korean, “Shimazaki” is Japanese, etc. Now, the first time around I found that Chinese-Americans and
4 0.84775072 409 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-“Tiny,” “Large,” “Very,” “Nice,” “Dumbest”
Introduction: Amusing authorship analysis.
5 0.8402245 116 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-29-How to grab power in a democracy – in 5 easy non-violent steps
Introduction: In the past decades violent means of grabbing power have been discredited and internationally regulated. Still, grabbing power is as desired as it has always been, and I’d like to introduce some new methods used today: Establish your base of power by achieving a critical mass (75%+) within a group with a high barrier to entry . Examples of barriers to entry: genetics (familiar ties, skin, eye color, hair type – takes 2+ generations to enter), religion (takes 2-10 years to enter), language (very hard to enter after the age of 10). Encourage your followers to have many children – because of common ethical concerns, other groups will help you bring them up. Control the system of indoctrination , such as religious schooling, government-based educational system, entertainment, popular culture – limiting the loss of children to out-group (only needed for non-genetic barriers to entry). Wait 18 years for your followers’ children to become eligible to vote. Win elections by
6 0.82474029 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
7 0.80774963 1097 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-03-Libertarians in Space
8 0.80260241 1346 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-27-Average predictive comparisons when changing a pair of variables
9 0.7889111 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
10 0.78801763 777 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-23-Combining survey data obtained using different modes of sampling
11 0.78711247 1345 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-26-Question 16 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
12 0.78239334 1266 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-16-Another day, another plagiarist
13 0.778319 1163 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-12-Meta-analysis, game theory, and incentives to do replicable research
15 0.77420461 1959 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-28-50 shades of gray: A research story
16 0.77318078 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
18 0.77119368 1171 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-16-“False-positive psychology”
19 0.76745331 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
20 0.76670027 804 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-15-Static sensitivity analysis