andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1416 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I opened the newspaper today (recall that this blog is on an approximately one-month delay) to see a moderately horrifying story about art appraisers who are deterred by fear of lawsuits from expressing an opinion about possible forgeries. Maybe this trend will come to science too? Perhaps Brett Pelham will sue Uri Simonsohn for the pain, suffering, and loss of income occurring from the questioning of his Dennis the dentist paper ? Or maybe I’ll be sued by some rogue sociologist for publicly questioning his data dredging? Anyway, what amused me about the NYT article on art forgery was that two of the artists featured in the discussion were . . . Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein! Warhol is famous for diluting the notion of the unique art object and for making works of art in a “Factory,” and Lichtenstein is famous for ripping off the style and imagery of comic book artists. It’s funny for the two of them, of all people, to come up in a discussion of authenticity. Or maybe it
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I opened the newspaper today (recall that this blog is on an approximately one-month delay) to see a moderately horrifying story about art appraisers who are deterred by fear of lawsuits from expressing an opinion about possible forgeries. [sent-1, score-1.203]
2 Perhaps Brett Pelham will sue Uri Simonsohn for the pain, suffering, and loss of income occurring from the questioning of his Dennis the dentist paper ? [sent-3, score-0.548]
3 Or maybe I’ll be sued by some rogue sociologist for publicly questioning his data dredging? [sent-4, score-0.642]
4 Anyway, what amused me about the NYT article on art forgery was that two of the artists featured in the discussion were . [sent-5, score-0.694]
5 Warhol is famous for diluting the notion of the unique art object and for making works of art in a “Factory,” and Lichtenstein is famous for ripping off the style and imagery of comic book artists. [sent-9, score-1.354]
6 It’s funny for the two of them, of all people, to come up in a discussion of authenticity. [sent-10, score-0.075]
7 Or maybe it’s not so surprising: given their styles, Warhol and Lichtenstein might both be relatively easy to forge. [sent-11, score-0.085]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('lichtenstein', 0.425), ('warhol', 0.425), ('art', 0.296), ('questioning', 0.18), ('imagery', 0.129), ('horrifying', 0.129), ('deterred', 0.122), ('diluting', 0.122), ('forgery', 0.122), ('famous', 0.118), ('dredging', 0.116), ('opened', 0.112), ('lawsuits', 0.112), ('sued', 0.109), ('sue', 0.109), ('suffering', 0.109), ('roy', 0.109), ('pelham', 0.109), ('factory', 0.106), ('artists', 0.106), ('comic', 0.104), ('pain', 0.104), ('styles', 0.104), ('brett', 0.104), ('rogue', 0.104), ('dentist', 0.102), ('today', 0.101), ('delay', 0.095), ('andy', 0.094), ('moderately', 0.094), ('dennis', 0.092), ('amused', 0.091), ('notion', 0.089), ('uri', 0.086), ('expressing', 0.085), ('simonsohn', 0.085), ('maybe', 0.085), ('occurring', 0.085), ('sociologist', 0.082), ('publicly', 0.082), ('object', 0.082), ('fear', 0.081), ('featured', 0.079), ('nyt', 0.078), ('blame', 0.076), ('trend', 0.076), ('come', 0.075), ('surprising', 0.073), ('loss', 0.072), ('approximately', 0.071)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1416 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-14-Ripping off a ripoff
Introduction: I opened the newspaper today (recall that this blog is on an approximately one-month delay) to see a moderately horrifying story about art appraisers who are deterred by fear of lawsuits from expressing an opinion about possible forgeries. Maybe this trend will come to science too? Perhaps Brett Pelham will sue Uri Simonsohn for the pain, suffering, and loss of income occurring from the questioning of his Dennis the dentist paper ? Or maybe I’ll be sued by some rogue sociologist for publicly questioning his data dredging? Anyway, what amused me about the NYT article on art forgery was that two of the artists featured in the discussion were . . . Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein! Warhol is famous for diluting the notion of the unique art object and for making works of art in a “Factory,” and Lichtenstein is famous for ripping off the style and imagery of comic book artists. It’s funny for the two of them, of all people, to come up in a discussion of authenticity. Or maybe it
2 0.23540311 1785 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-02-So much artistic talent
Introduction: I saw this excellent art show the other day, and it reminded me how much artistic talent is out there. I really have no idea whassup with those all-black canvases and the other stuff you see at modern art museums, given that there’s so much interesting new stuff being created every year. I see a big difference between art made by people who feel they have something they want to say, compared to art being made by people who feel they are supposed to make art because they’re artists. And there’s also the internal logic of art responding to other art, as Tom Wolfe discussed in The Painted Word.
Introduction: Jed Dougherty points me to this opinion piece by Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of art at Northwestern University, who writes: Artists are defensive these days because in May the House passed an amendment to a bill eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts. Colleagues, especially those who have received N.E.A. grants, will loathe me for saying this, but just this once I’m sympathetic with the anti-intellectual Republicans behind this amendment. Why? The bill incited a national conversation about a subject that has troubled me for decades: the government — disproportionately — supports art that I do not like. Actually, just about nobody likes modern art. All those soup cans—what’s that all about? The stuff they have in museums nowadays, my 4-year-old could do better than that. Two-thirds of so-called modern artists are drunk and two-thirds are frauds. And, no, I didn’t get my math wrong—there’s just a lot of overlap among these categories! It’s an open secret in my
4 0.16061674 102 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-21-Why modern art is all in the mind
Introduction: This looks cool: Ten years ago researchers in America took two groups of three-year-olds and showed them a blob of paint on a canvas. Children who were told that the marks were the result of an accidental spillage showed little interest. The others, who had been told that the splodge of colour had been carefully created for them, started to refer to it as “a painting”. Now that experiment . . . has gone on to form part of the foundation of an influential new book that questions the way in which we respond to art. . . . The book, which is subtitled The New Science of Why We Like What We Like, is not an attack on modern or contemporary art and Bloom says fans of more traditional art are not capable of making purely aesthetic judgments either. “I don’t have a strong position about the art itself,” he said this weekend. “But I do have a strong position about why we actually like it.” This sounds fascinating. But I’m skeptical about this part: Humans are incapable of just getti
5 0.13097647 2166 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-10-3 years out of date on the whole Dennis the dentist thing!
Introduction: Paging Uri Simonsohn . . . January 2014: Alice Robb writes , completely uncritically: “If Your Name is Dennis, You’re More Likely to Become a Dentist The strange science of how names shape careers.” But look what you can learn from a quick google: Hmmmm, maybe worth following up on that second link . . . More details here , from 2011: Devah Pager points me to this article by Uri Simonsohn, which begins: Three articles published [by Brett Pelham et al.] have shown that a disproportionate share of people choose spouses, places to live, and occupations with names similar to their own. These findings, interpreted as evidence of implicit egotism, are included in most modern social psychology textbooks and many university courses. The current article successfully replicates the original findings but shows that they are most likely caused by a combination of cohort, geographic, and ethnic confounds as well as reverse causality. From Simonsohn’s article, here’s a han
6 0.11769311 565 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-09-Dennis the dentist, debunked?
7 0.089241832 1553 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-30-Real rothko, fake rothko
8 0.074049383 2138 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-18-In Memoriam Dennis Lindley
9 0.070496887 471 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-Attractive models (and data) wanted for statistical art show.
10 0.069342934 1381 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-16-The Art of Fielding
11 0.06302394 1969 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-05-New issue of Symposium magazine
12 0.062494934 720 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Baby name wizards
13 0.06119404 436 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-Quality control problems at the New York Times
14 0.061047949 1962 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-30-The Roy causal model?
15 0.058272343 712 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-The joys of working in the public domain
16 0.053635865 1945 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-18-“How big is your chance of dying in an ordinary play?”
17 0.052952599 1246 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-04-Data visualization panel at the New York Public Library this evening!
18 0.052542172 629 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-26-Is it plausible that 1% of people pick a career based on their first name?
19 0.051026538 1198 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-05-A cloud with a silver lining
20 0.049738284 1641 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-27-The Möbius strip, or, marketing that is impervious to criticism
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.074), (1, -0.04), (2, -0.009), (3, 0.007), (4, -0.014), (5, -0.022), (6, 0.017), (7, -0.017), (8, 0.009), (9, 0.0), (10, -0.005), (11, -0.007), (12, -0.016), (13, 0.014), (14, 0.02), (15, 0.002), (16, -0.01), (17, 0.023), (18, 0.001), (19, -0.016), (20, -0.001), (21, 0.01), (22, -0.015), (23, -0.035), (24, 0.002), (25, 0.022), (26, -0.017), (27, 0.016), (28, 0.0), (29, -0.015), (30, -0.024), (31, 0.003), (32, -0.004), (33, -0.018), (34, 0.013), (35, 0.045), (36, -0.005), (37, -0.028), (38, -0.019), (39, -0.007), (40, -0.013), (41, -0.009), (42, -0.013), (43, 0.017), (44, 0.046), (45, 0.033), (46, -0.007), (47, -0.014), (48, 0.045), (49, 0.013)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9202441 1416 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-14-Ripping off a ripoff
Introduction: I opened the newspaper today (recall that this blog is on an approximately one-month delay) to see a moderately horrifying story about art appraisers who are deterred by fear of lawsuits from expressing an opinion about possible forgeries. Maybe this trend will come to science too? Perhaps Brett Pelham will sue Uri Simonsohn for the pain, suffering, and loss of income occurring from the questioning of his Dennis the dentist paper ? Or maybe I’ll be sued by some rogue sociologist for publicly questioning his data dredging? Anyway, what amused me about the NYT article on art forgery was that two of the artists featured in the discussion were . . . Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein! Warhol is famous for diluting the notion of the unique art object and for making works of art in a “Factory,” and Lichtenstein is famous for ripping off the style and imagery of comic book artists. It’s funny for the two of them, of all people, to come up in a discussion of authenticity. Or maybe it
2 0.72498518 102 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-21-Why modern art is all in the mind
Introduction: This looks cool: Ten years ago researchers in America took two groups of three-year-olds and showed them a blob of paint on a canvas. Children who were told that the marks were the result of an accidental spillage showed little interest. The others, who had been told that the splodge of colour had been carefully created for them, started to refer to it as “a painting”. Now that experiment . . . has gone on to form part of the foundation of an influential new book that questions the way in which we respond to art. . . . The book, which is subtitled The New Science of Why We Like What We Like, is not an attack on modern or contemporary art and Bloom says fans of more traditional art are not capable of making purely aesthetic judgments either. “I don’t have a strong position about the art itself,” he said this weekend. “But I do have a strong position about why we actually like it.” This sounds fascinating. But I’m skeptical about this part: Humans are incapable of just getti
3 0.69900566 1785 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-02-So much artistic talent
Introduction: I saw this excellent art show the other day, and it reminded me how much artistic talent is out there. I really have no idea whassup with those all-black canvases and the other stuff you see at modern art museums, given that there’s so much interesting new stuff being created every year. I see a big difference between art made by people who feel they have something they want to say, compared to art being made by people who feel they are supposed to make art because they’re artists. And there’s also the internal logic of art responding to other art, as Tom Wolfe discussed in The Painted Word.
Introduction: Jed Dougherty points me to this opinion piece by Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of art at Northwestern University, who writes: Artists are defensive these days because in May the House passed an amendment to a bill eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts. Colleagues, especially those who have received N.E.A. grants, will loathe me for saying this, but just this once I’m sympathetic with the anti-intellectual Republicans behind this amendment. Why? The bill incited a national conversation about a subject that has troubled me for decades: the government — disproportionately — supports art that I do not like. Actually, just about nobody likes modern art. All those soup cans—what’s that all about? The stuff they have in museums nowadays, my 4-year-old could do better than that. Two-thirds of so-called modern artists are drunk and two-thirds are frauds. And, no, I didn’t get my math wrong—there’s just a lot of overlap among these categories! It’s an open secret in my
5 0.65116143 2166 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-10-3 years out of date on the whole Dennis the dentist thing!
Introduction: Paging Uri Simonsohn . . . January 2014: Alice Robb writes , completely uncritically: “If Your Name is Dennis, You’re More Likely to Become a Dentist The strange science of how names shape careers.” But look what you can learn from a quick google: Hmmmm, maybe worth following up on that second link . . . More details here , from 2011: Devah Pager points me to this article by Uri Simonsohn, which begins: Three articles published [by Brett Pelham et al.] have shown that a disproportionate share of people choose spouses, places to live, and occupations with names similar to their own. These findings, interpreted as evidence of implicit egotism, are included in most modern social psychology textbooks and many university courses. The current article successfully replicates the original findings but shows that they are most likely caused by a combination of cohort, geographic, and ethnic confounds as well as reverse causality. From Simonsohn’s article, here’s a han
6 0.64873576 2164 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-09-Hermann Goering and Jane Jacobs, together at last!
8 0.62088263 2189 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-28-History is too important to be left to the history professors
9 0.61726969 1534 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-15-The strange reappearance of Matthew Klam
10 0.6087901 1542 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-20-A statistical model for underdispersion
11 0.60432786 1683 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-“Confirmation, on the other hand, is not sexy”
12 0.59911638 1901 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-16-Evilicious: Why We Evolved a Taste for Being Bad
13 0.59908473 161 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-24-Differences in color perception by sex, also the Bechdel test for women in movies
14 0.59798497 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
16 0.59533805 1483 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-04-“Bestselling Author Caught Posting Positive Reviews of His Own Work on Amazon”
17 0.59205711 2141 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-20-Don’t douthat, man! Please give this fallacy a name.
18 0.58848387 174 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-01-Literature and life
19 0.58537537 2177 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-19-“The British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happiness”
20 0.58533835 565 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-09-Dennis the dentist, debunked?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.055), (2, 0.024), (12, 0.011), (15, 0.031), (16, 0.081), (21, 0.013), (22, 0.011), (24, 0.124), (30, 0.184), (32, 0.015), (43, 0.013), (44, 0.015), (48, 0.014), (49, 0.013), (54, 0.016), (63, 0.022), (65, 0.03), (79, 0.014), (81, 0.015), (86, 0.017), (91, 0.014), (97, 0.017), (98, 0.012), (99, 0.148)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.91492581 41 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-19-Updated R code and data for ARM
Introduction: Patricia and I have cleaned up some of the R and Bugs code and collected the data for almost all the examples in ARM. See here for links to zip files with the code and data.
same-blog 2 0.90016693 1416 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-14-Ripping off a ripoff
Introduction: I opened the newspaper today (recall that this blog is on an approximately one-month delay) to see a moderately horrifying story about art appraisers who are deterred by fear of lawsuits from expressing an opinion about possible forgeries. Maybe this trend will come to science too? Perhaps Brett Pelham will sue Uri Simonsohn for the pain, suffering, and loss of income occurring from the questioning of his Dennis the dentist paper ? Or maybe I’ll be sued by some rogue sociologist for publicly questioning his data dredging? Anyway, what amused me about the NYT article on art forgery was that two of the artists featured in the discussion were . . . Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein! Warhol is famous for diluting the notion of the unique art object and for making works of art in a “Factory,” and Lichtenstein is famous for ripping off the style and imagery of comic book artists. It’s funny for the two of them, of all people, to come up in a discussion of authenticity. Or maybe it
3 0.865291 1188 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-28-Reference on longitudinal models?
Introduction: Antonio Ramos writes: The book with Hill has very little on longitudinal models. So do you recommended any reference to complement your book on covariance structures typical from these models, such as AR(1), Antedependence, Factor Analytic, etc? I am very much interest in BUGS code for these basic models as well as how to extend them to more complex situations. My reply: There is a book by Banerjee, Carlin, and Gelfand on Bayesian space-time models. Beyond that, I think there is good work in psychometrics on covaraince structures but I don’t know the literature.
4 0.85940707 179 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-An Olympic size swimming pool full of lithium water
Introduction: As part of his continuing plan to sap etc etc., Aleks pointed me to an article by Max Miller reporting on a recommendation from Jacob Appel: Adding trace amounts of lithium to the drinking water could limit suicides. . . . Communities with higher than average amounts of lithium in their drinking water had significantly lower suicide rates than communities with lower levels. Regions of Texas with lower lithium concentrations had an average suicide rate of 14.2 per 100,000 people, whereas those areas with naturally higher lithium levels had a dramatically lower suicide rate of 8.7 per 100,000. The highest levels in Texas (150 micrograms of lithium per liter of water) are only a thousandth of the minimum pharmaceutical dose, and have no known deleterious effects. I don’t know anything about this and am offering no judgment on it; I’m just passing it on. The research studies are here and here . I am skeptical, though, about this part of the argument: We are not talking a
5 0.85472679 593 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-27-Heat map
Introduction: Jarad Niemi sends along this plot: and writes: 2010-2011 Miami Heat offensive (red), defensive (blue), and combined (black) player contribution means (dots) and 95% credible intervals (lines) where zero indicates an average NBA player. Larger positive numbers for offensive and combined are better while larger negative numbers for defense are better. In retrospect, I [Niemi] should have plotted -1*defensive_contribution so that larger was always better. The main point with this figure is that this awesome combination of James-Wade-Bosh that was discussed immediately after the LeBron trade to the Heat has a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other aspect. At least according to my analysis, Bosh is hurting his team compared to the average player (although not statistically significant) due to his terrible defensive contribution (which is statistically significant). All fine so far. But the punchline comes at the end, when he writes: Anyway, a reviewer said he hated the
6 0.82835507 412 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Time to apply for the hackNY summer fellows program
7 0.81176519 1259 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-11-How things sound to us, versus how they sound to others
9 0.80606413 1195 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-Multiple comparisons dispute in the tabloids
10 0.78472394 1623 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-GiveWell charity recommendations
11 0.78232062 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
12 0.78032911 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
13 0.77899903 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race
14 0.75390613 1497 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-15-Our blog makes connections!
15 0.74143493 2262 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-23-Win probabilities during a sporting event
16 0.73906314 450 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-04-The Joy of Stats
17 0.73441297 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
18 0.73233455 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
19 0.7304768 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum
20 0.72938329 2288 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-10-Small multiples of lineplots > maps (ok, not always, but yes in this case)