andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1603 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . . . OK, fine, but let’s talk incentives. If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. If these discoverers, exposers, and confronters are going to be attacked back by their targets (which would be natural enough) and they’re going to be attacked by the fraudsters’ friends and colleagues (also natural) and even have their work disparaged by outsiders who think they’re going too far, then, hey, they need some incentives in the othe
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. [sent-1, score-0.415]
2 That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. [sent-2, score-0.419]
3 Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . [sent-3, score-0.209]
4 If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. [sent-7, score-1.157]
5 So, yes, I think it’s fair enough for the Uri Simonsohns of the world to get a little fame and fortune in return for their admirable efforts. [sent-9, score-0.299]
6 in the Atlantic Monthly, an excellent brief article on Simonsohn, written by science journalist Christopher Shea. [sent-13, score-0.074]
7 A few more articles like this might motivate more scientists to look into fraud more seriously, and it might scare a few potential fraudsters into staying legit. [sent-14, score-0.964]
8 This is something that my Columbia sociology colleague Sudhir Venkatesh might appreciate , given how he [Sudhir] “repeatedly pointed out lax procedures that had long been the rule [at Columbia] and . [sent-15, score-0.315]
9 called for a thorough review of all procedures on several occasions, in part because [he] was worried about the risks the University faced. [sent-18, score-0.388]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('fraudsters', 0.342), ('sudhir', 0.253), ('simonsohn', 0.251), ('uncovering', 0.22), ('attacked', 0.189), ('uri', 0.169), ('going', 0.161), ('fraud', 0.151), ('incentives', 0.146), ('procedures', 0.138), ('confronters', 0.126), ('discoverers', 0.126), ('exposers', 0.126), ('exposing', 0.126), ('simonsohns', 0.126), ('venkatesh', 0.126), ('unseemly', 0.119), ('columbia', 0.114), ('confronting', 0.114), ('occasions', 0.11), ('disparaged', 0.11), ('scare', 0.11), ('superstar', 0.11), ('admirable', 0.107), ('retractions', 0.107), ('forcing', 0.107), ('natural', 0.104), ('targets', 0.104), ('staying', 0.1), ('plagiarists', 0.1), ('fortune', 0.098), ('retract', 0.098), ('atlantic', 0.096), ('fame', 0.094), ('thorough', 0.092), ('might', 0.09), ('christopher', 0.089), ('discovering', 0.089), ('hero', 0.089), ('retraction', 0.088), ('change', 0.088), ('lax', 0.087), ('monthly', 0.082), ('motivate', 0.081), ('outsiders', 0.08), ('risks', 0.079), ('several', 0.079), ('repeatedly', 0.077), ('brief', 0.074), ('scholarly', 0.074)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1603 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-03-Somebody listened to me!
Introduction: Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . . . OK, fine, but let’s talk incentives. If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. If these discoverers, exposers, and confronters are going to be attacked back by their targets (which would be natural enough) and they’re going to be attacked by the fraudsters’ friends and colleagues (also natural) and even have their work disparaged by outsiders who think they’re going too far, then, hey, they need some incentives in the othe
Introduction: Two news items. 1. A couple people pointed me to the uncovering of another fraudulent Dutch psychology researcher—this time it was Dirk Smeesters, rather than Diederik Stapel . It’s hard to keep these guys straight—they all pretty much have the same names and do the same things. Stapel and Smeesters also seem to live in the same postmodernist/business-school nexus: left-wing enough to not care about truth if it confirms their social theories, right-wing enough to not care as long as they’re getting paid enough. In the comments to the Retraction Watch post, Richard Gill writes , “it looks to me [Gill] like Smeesters was subjected to medieval torture and confessed.” Medieval torture, huh? I haven’t seen Holy Grail in many years but I recall that’s pretty rough stuff, of the sort that even John Yoo might think twice about. I followed the links and didn’t see what the torture was, but I have to admit I didn’t even try to read the Dutch documents. On the upside, Gill follow
3 0.25936016 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
Introduction: A blog commenter pointed me to this news article on Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor here: He was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated. According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . . . All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83. . . . Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000. . . . “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement.” One thing that frustrates me with newspaper articles is when they don’t follow up. Venkatesh was
4 0.12589005 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
5 0.12538873 565 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-09-Dennis the dentist, debunked?
Introduction: 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 handy summary of the claims and the evidence (click on it to enlarge): The Pelham et al. articles have come up several times on the blog, starting with this discussion and this estimate and then more recently here . I’m curious what Pelham and his collaborators think of Simonsohn’s claims.
6 0.10883895 1093 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-30-Strings Attached: Untangling the Ethics of Incentives
7 0.09122324 1844 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-06-Against optimism about social science
8 0.091015846 1252 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-08-Jagdish Bhagwati’s definition of feminist sincerity
9 0.089034535 989 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-03-This post does not mention Wegman
10 0.079353377 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
12 0.076368213 629 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-26-Is it plausible that 1% of people pick a career based on their first name?
13 0.075472273 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
14 0.070103392 420 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-18-Prison terms for financial fraud?
15 0.069586918 1171 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-16-“False-positive psychology”
16 0.065943792 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
17 0.065664582 1442 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-03-Double standard? Plagiarizing journos get slammed, plagiarizing profs just shrug it off
18 0.06555476 1883 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-04-Interrogating p-values
20 0.063285835 2301 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-22-Ticket to Baaaaarf
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.125), (1, -0.065), (2, -0.045), (3, -0.026), (4, -0.027), (5, -0.009), (6, 0.023), (7, -0.015), (8, 0.003), (9, 0.013), (10, -0.01), (11, -0.005), (12, -0.003), (13, -0.013), (14, -0.017), (15, -0.008), (16, -0.003), (17, -0.021), (18, 0.002), (19, 0.01), (20, -0.022), (21, -0.008), (22, -0.004), (23, 0.016), (24, -0.002), (25, -0.027), (26, 0.007), (27, -0.009), (28, -0.007), (29, 0.014), (30, 0.021), (31, 0.043), (32, 0.004), (33, 0.013), (34, 0.0), (35, -0.032), (36, 0.038), (37, -0.035), (38, 0.014), (39, 0.001), (40, -0.001), (41, 0.03), (42, 0.003), (43, -0.019), (44, -0.012), (45, 0.009), (46, -0.02), (47, 0.015), (48, 0.045), (49, -0.003)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95127922 1603 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-03-Somebody listened to me!
Introduction: Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . . . OK, fine, but let’s talk incentives. If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. If these discoverers, exposers, and confronters are going to be attacked back by their targets (which would be natural enough) and they’re going to be attacked by the fraudsters’ friends and colleagues (also natural) and even have their work disparaged by outsiders who think they’re going too far, then, hey, they need some incentives in the othe
Introduction: Two news items. 1. A couple people pointed me to the uncovering of another fraudulent Dutch psychology researcher—this time it was Dirk Smeesters, rather than Diederik Stapel . It’s hard to keep these guys straight—they all pretty much have the same names and do the same things. Stapel and Smeesters also seem to live in the same postmodernist/business-school nexus: left-wing enough to not care about truth if it confirms their social theories, right-wing enough to not care as long as they’re getting paid enough. In the comments to the Retraction Watch post, Richard Gill writes , “it looks to me [Gill] like Smeesters was subjected to medieval torture and confessed.” Medieval torture, huh? I haven’t seen Holy Grail in many years but I recall that’s pretty rough stuff, of the sort that even John Yoo might think twice about. I followed the links and didn’t see what the torture was, but I have to admit I didn’t even try to read the Dutch documents. On the upside, Gill follow
Introduction: Someone points me to this report from Tilburg University on disgraced psychology researcher Diederik Stapel. The reports includes bits like this: When the fraud was first discovered, limiting the harm it caused for the victims was a matter of urgency. This was particularly the case for Mr Stapel’s former PhD students and postdoctoral researchers . . . However, the Committees were of the opinion that the main bulk of the work had not yet even started. . . . Journal publications can often leave traces that reach far into and even beyond scientific disciplines. The self-cleansing character of science calls for fraudulent publications to be withdrawn and no longer to proliferate within the literature. In addition, based on their initial impressions, the Committees believed that there were other serious issues within Mr Stapel’s publications . . . This brought into the spotlight a research culture in which this sloppy science, alongside out-and-out fraud, was able to remain undetected
4 0.78007728 166 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-27-The Three Golden Rules for Successful Scientific Research
Introduction: A famous computer scientist, Edsger W. Dijkstra, was writing short memos on a daily basis for most of his life. His memo archives contains a little over 1300 memos. I guess today he would be writing a blog, although his memos do tend to be slightly more profound than what I post. Here are the rules (follow link for commentary), which I tried to summarize: Pursue quality and challenge, avoid routine. (“Raise your quality standards as high as you can live with, avoid wasting your time on routine problems, and always try to work as closely as possible at the boundary of your abilities. Do this, because it is the only way of discovering how that boundary should be moved forward.”) When pursuing social relevance, never compromise on scientific soundness. (“We all like our work to be socially relevant and scientifically sound. If we can find a topic satisfying both desires, we are lucky; if the two targets are in conflict with each other, let the requirement of scientific sou
5 0.77674711 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
Introduction: A blog commenter pointed me to this news article on Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociology professor here: He was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated. According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended . . . All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83. . . . Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000. . . . “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement.” One thing that frustrates me with newspaper articles is when they don’t follow up. Venkatesh was
6 0.76253706 1588 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-23-No one knows what it’s like to be the bad man
7 0.75873995 766 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-Last Wegman post (for now)
8 0.75849825 69 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-04-A Wikipedia whitewash
10 0.74824321 989 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-03-This post does not mention Wegman
11 0.74736565 2006 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Evaluating evidence from published research
12 0.74051273 2053 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-06-Ideas that spread fast and slow
13 0.73803627 728 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-24-A (not quite) grand unified theory of plagiarism, as applied to the Wegman case
14 0.73721159 1442 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-03-Double standard? Plagiarizing journos get slammed, plagiarizing profs just shrug it off
15 0.73550004 688 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-30-Why it’s so relaxing to think about social issues
16 0.73301166 2337 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-18-Never back down: The culture of poverty and the culture of journalism
17 0.73291022 2014 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-09-False memories and statistical analysis
18 0.73105168 1031 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-27-Richard Stallman and John McCarthy
19 0.72849077 901 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-Some thoughts on academic cheating, inspired by Frey, Wegman, Fischer, Hauser, Stapel
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.027), (7, 0.246), (15, 0.016), (16, 0.08), (21, 0.034), (24, 0.047), (34, 0.011), (59, 0.035), (76, 0.045), (89, 0.024), (95, 0.029), (99, 0.276)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.9477098 1592 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-27-Art-math
Introduction: This seems like the sort of thing I would like: Drawing from My Mind’s Eye: Dorothea Rockburne in Conversation with David Cohen Introduced by Nina Samuel Thursday, November 29 6 pm BGC, 38 West 86th Street Benoît Mandelbrot, unusual among mathematicians of the twentieth century, harnessed the power of visual images to express his theories and to pursue new lines of thought. In this conversation artist Dorothea Rockburne will share memories of studying with mathematician Max Dehn at Black Mountain College, of meeting Mandelbrot, and discuss her recent work. Exhibition curator Nina Samuel will discuss the related exhibition “The Islands of Benoît Mandelbrot: Fractals, Chaos, and the Materiality of Thinking,” on view in the BGC Focus Gallery through January 27, 2013. David Cohen is editor and publisher of artcritical.com as well as founder and moderator of The Review Panel. Dorothea Rockburne is a distinguished artist whose work has been inspired by her lifelong st
2 0.90057659 975 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Caffeine keeps your Mac awake
Introduction: Sometimes my computer goes blank when I’m giving a presentation and I haven’t clicked on anything for awhile. I mentioned this to Malecki and he installed Caffeine on my computer; problem solved.
same-blog 3 0.89612317 1603 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-03-Somebody listened to me!
Introduction: Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . . . OK, fine, but let’s talk incentives. If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. If these discoverers, exposers, and confronters are going to be attacked back by their targets (which would be natural enough) and they’re going to be attacked by the fraudsters’ friends and colleagues (also natural) and even have their work disparaged by outsiders who think they’re going too far, then, hey, they need some incentives in the othe
4 0.87432373 1525 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-08-Ethical standards in different data communities
Introduction: I opened the paper today and saw this from Paul Krugman, on Jack Welch, the former chairman of General Electric, who posted an assertion on Twitter that the [recent unemployment data] had been cooked to help President Obama’s re-election campaign. His claim was quickly picked up by right-wing pundits and media personalities. It was nonsense, of course. Job numbers are prepared by professional civil servants, at an agency that currently has no political appointees. But then maybe Mr. Welch — under whose leadership G.E. reported remarkably smooth earnings growth, with none of the short-term fluctuations you might have expected (fluctuations that reappeared under his successor) — doesn’t know how hard it would be to cook the jobs data. I was curious so I googled *general electric historical earnings*. It was surprisingly difficult to find the numbers! Most of the links just went back to 2011, or to 2008. Eventually I came across this blog by Barry Ritholtz that showed this
5 0.86755127 721 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Non-statistical thinking in the US foreign policy establishment
Introduction: I’m a few weeks behind in my New Yorker reading and so just recently read this fascinating article by Ryan Lizza on the current administration’s foreign policy. He gives some insights into the transformation Obama from antiwar candidate to a president conducting three wars. Speaking as a statistician, though, what grabbed my eye was a doctrine of journalist/professor/policymaker Samantha Power. Lizza writes: In 2002, after graduating from Harvard Law School, she wrote “A Problem from Hell,” which surveyed the grim history of six genocides committed in the twentieth century. Propounding a liberal-interventionist view, Power argued that “mass killing” on the scale of Rwanda or Bosnia must be prevented by other nations, including the United States. She wrote that America and its allies rarely have perfect information about when a regime is about to commit genocide; a President, therefore, must have “a bias toward belief” that massacres are imminent. From a statistical perspect
6 0.84456021 1194 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-Multilevel modeling even when you’re not interested in predictions for new groups
7 0.84226 402 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-09-Kaggle: forecasting competitions in the classroom
8 0.83252102 1699 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Fowlerpalooza!
11 0.82025528 1814 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-20-A mess with which I am comfortable
12 0.80424964 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
13 0.80154932 2230 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-02-What is it with Americans in Olympic ski teams from tropical countries?
15 0.78558326 226 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-23-More on those L.A. Times estimates of teacher effectiveness
16 0.78152865 1951 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-22-Top 5 stat papers since 2000?
18 0.77501625 277 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-In an introductory course, when does learning occur?
19 0.76784366 1752 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Online Education and Jazz
20 0.76329434 2117 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-29-The gradual transition to replicable science