andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1728 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Given Grandma Mankiw’s hypothetical distaste for Sonia Sotomayor’s spending habits (recall that Grandma “would have been shocked and appalled” by the judge’s lack of savings), I expect she (the grandmother) would be even more irritated by the success of Sotomayor’s recent book: Now that Sotomayor has a ton of money coming in, in addition to a well-paying job and pension for life, that would almost seem to validate Sotomayor’s foolish, foolish decision to enjoy herself in middle age rather than sock hundreds of thousands of dollars into a retirement account she likely would never touch during her lifetime. One interesting thing about this example is that Mankiw apparently holds within himself a descriptive and normative view of economics. Descriptively, he models people as “spenders” or “savers.” But, normatively, he seems to attribute higher values to the “savers.” (He also seems to be confused about the relation between saving to intertemporal preference (see my long p
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 One interesting thing about this example is that Mankiw apparently holds within himself a descriptive and normative view of economics. [sent-2, score-0.103]
2 ” (He also seems to be confused about the relation between saving to intertemporal preference (see my long paragraph here ), at least in Sotomayor’s case, but that’s another story. [sent-5, score-0.224]
3 I personally don’t get it (except as a comment on his grandmother’s Great-Depression-induced attitudes) but the way Mankiw wrote his post, it really does seem that he sees it as a negative comment on the judge that she’s not saving her money for a tomorrow that will never come. [sent-7, score-0.441]
4 Every social science has its descriptive and moral component. [sent-9, score-0.339]
5 For example, my colleagues and I have descriptively studied partisan bias of electoral systems—but the very word “bias” implies a perspective that it’s a bad thing. [sent-10, score-0.321]
6 When sociologists study networks, I think there is a general view that you don’t want to be the Unabomber, that it is better to establish enduring human connections with friends. [sent-12, score-0.053]
7 The moral component of social science seems different than the utilitarian component of physical science. [sent-14, score-0.382]
8 So, my comment about the overlapping descriptive and moral natures of social science is not a criticism. [sent-21, score-0.445]
9 Back to Sotomayor, Grandma Mankiw, and Greg’s 93% tax rate Anyway, this all gives me some insight (or, at least I think it does) on Mankiw’s claim that he would work less once Obama came to power and cranked the marginal tax rate up to 93% (see updates here and here ). [sent-23, score-0.488]
10 As the commenters discussed, you can only get the tax rate up to 93% by making some assumptions about savings and compound interest and the inheritance tax. [sent-24, score-0.522]
11 Recall that, a few years ago, Mankiw wrote that it is wrong to tax a “justly acquired endowment” that is not “unfairly wrested from anyone else. [sent-26, score-0.228]
12 From Mankiw’s perspective, saving is moral, spending is not so moral (and, recall that the criticism of Sotomayor is not that she’s spending beyond her means, but just that she’s spending what she’s already earned). [sent-28, score-0.837]
13 Sure, Mankiw is putting this anti-spending perspective in the mouth of his grandmother, but the way he writes it, it appears to me that he’s expressing his own beliefs as well here. [sent-29, score-0.108]
14 Put these two things together, and you can see how he would (a) support a tax on consumption (an activity of which he expresses disapproval) and (b) gets annoyed by income and inheritance tax. [sent-31, score-0.474]
15 After all, from his perspective, high income represents a good thing so why tax it, and inheritance represents savings (unspent income), which is also good, so that shouldn’t be taxed either. [sent-32, score-0.699]
16 The idea that Sotomayor spent all her money, and is now rewarded for that behavior by a Supreme Court seat and “ a seven-figure advance ” and royalties from her new book—that’s gotta be really galling from the virtuous-ant-and-lazy-grasshoper perspective attributed to Grandma Mankiw. [sent-33, score-0.159]
17 It’s the flip side of taxing the bequests of elderly rich people who virtuously saved their money and wisely invested it for decades in real estate and the stock market. [sent-34, score-0.19]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('sotomayor', 0.458), ('mankiw', 0.409), ('grandma', 0.31), ('tax', 0.177), ('saving', 0.171), ('grandmother', 0.16), ('moral', 0.155), ('inheritance', 0.147), ('spending', 0.145), ('savings', 0.131), ('descriptively', 0.113), ('perspective', 0.108), ('descriptive', 0.103), ('money', 0.09), ('foolish', 0.083), ('social', 0.081), ('separation', 0.081), ('recall', 0.076), ('income', 0.075), ('activity', 0.075), ('component', 0.073), ('rate', 0.067), ('judge', 0.066), ('represents', 0.059), ('comment', 0.057), ('sonia', 0.056), ('distaste', 0.056), ('schizophrenia', 0.056), ('endowment', 0.056), ('ultralight', 0.056), ('intertemporal', 0.053), ('justly', 0.053), ('enduring', 0.053), ('ton', 0.053), ('pension', 0.053), ('shouldn', 0.052), ('taxed', 0.051), ('acquired', 0.051), ('disapproval', 0.051), ('wisely', 0.051), ('royalties', 0.051), ('bias', 0.05), ('bad', 0.05), ('shocked', 0.049), ('prescription', 0.049), ('taxing', 0.049), ('chemist', 0.049), ('overlapping', 0.049), ('keynes', 0.049), ('unfairly', 0.049)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000002 1728 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-19-The grasshopper wins, and Greg Mankiw’s grandmother would be “shocked and appalled” all over again
Introduction: Given Grandma Mankiw’s hypothetical distaste for Sonia Sotomayor’s spending habits (recall that Grandma “would have been shocked and appalled” by the judge’s lack of savings), I expect she (the grandmother) would be even more irritated by the success of Sotomayor’s recent book: Now that Sotomayor has a ton of money coming in, in addition to a well-paying job and pension for life, that would almost seem to validate Sotomayor’s foolish, foolish decision to enjoy herself in middle age rather than sock hundreds of thousands of dollars into a retirement account she likely would never touch during her lifetime. One interesting thing about this example is that Mankiw apparently holds within himself a descriptive and normative view of economics. Descriptively, he models people as “spenders” or “savers.” But, normatively, he seems to attribute higher values to the “savers.” (He also seems to be confused about the relation between saving to intertemporal preference (see my long p
Introduction: Greg Mankiw writes (link from Tyler Cowen ): Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I [Mankiw] turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered? By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working. First, the good news Obama’s tax rates are much lower than Mankiw had anticipated! According to the above quote, his marginal tax rate is currently 80% but threatens to rise to 90%. But, in October 2008, Mankiw calculated that Obama’s would tax his m
3 0.41044229 2261 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-23-Greg Mankiw’s utility function
Introduction: From 2010 : Greg Mankiw writes (link from Tyler Cowen ): Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I [Mankiw] turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered? By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working. First, the good news Obama’s tax rates are much lower than Mankiw had anticipated! According to the above quote, his marginal tax rate is currently 80% but threatens to rise to 90%. But, in October 2008, Mankiw calculated that Obama’s
4 0.39792293 338 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-12-Update on Mankiw’s work incentives
Introduction: Tyler Cowen links to a blog by Greg Mankiw with further details on his argument that his anticipated 90% marginal tax rate will reduce his work level. Having already given my thoughts on Mankiw’s column, I merely have a few things to add/emphasize. 1. Cowen frames the arguments in terms of the “status” of George Bush, Greg Mankiw, Barack Obama, and their proposed policies. I hadn’t thought of the arguments as being about status, but I think I see what Cowen is saying. By being a well-known economist and having a column in the New York Times, Mankiw is trading some of his status for political advocacy (just as Krugman does, from the opposite direction). If Mankiw didn’t have the pre-existing status, I doubt this particular column would’ve made it into the newspaper. (Again, ditto with many of Krugman’s columns.) So it makes sense that arguments about the substance of Mankiw’s remarks will get tied into disputes about his status. 2. Neither Cowen nor Mankiw address
5 0.33418128 366 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-24-Mankiw tax update
Introduction: I was going through the blog and noticed this note on an article by Mankiw and Weinzierl who implied that the state only has a right to tax things that are “unjustly wrestled from someone else.” This didn’t make much sense to me–whether it’s the sales tax, the income tax, or whatever, I see taxes as a way to raise money, not as a form of punishment. At the time, I conjectured this was a general difference in attitude between political scientists and economists, but in retrospect I realize I’m dealing with n=1 in each case. See here for further discussion of taxing “justly acquired endowments.” The only reason I’m bringing this all up now is that I think it is relevant to our recent discussion here and here of Mankiw’s work incentives. Mankiw objected to paying a higher marginal tax rate, and I think part of this is that he sees taxes as a form of punishment, and since he came by his income honestly he doesn’t think it’s fair to have to pay taxes on it. My perspective i
6 0.13502236 814 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-The powerful consumer?
7 0.12556958 26 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on religious affiliations of Supreme Court justices
8 0.11312895 922 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-Economists don’t think like accountants—but maybe they should
9 0.10576182 67 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-03-More on that Dartmouth health care study
10 0.10073037 50 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-25-Looking for Sister Right
11 0.09898863 1145 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-30-A tax on inequality, or a tax to keep inequality at the current level?
12 0.091695666 1043 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-Krugman disses Hayek as “being almost entirely about politics rather than economics”
14 0.083451472 807 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-Macro causality
15 0.081948631 2253 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-17-On deck this week: Revisitings
16 0.078791469 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
17 0.076538868 1229 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-25-Same old story
18 0.071964249 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
19 0.071411535 719 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-19-Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer)
20 0.071283385 311 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-Where do our taxes go?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.149), (1, -0.075), (2, 0.048), (3, 0.043), (4, -0.062), (5, -0.017), (6, 0.044), (7, 0.002), (8, 0.024), (9, 0.077), (10, -0.132), (11, -0.026), (12, -0.05), (13, 0.096), (14, 0.006), (15, -0.049), (16, 0.043), (17, 0.026), (18, -0.126), (19, 0.067), (20, 0.216), (21, 0.033), (22, 0.091), (23, 0.12), (24, -0.106), (25, 0.014), (26, -0.019), (27, -0.044), (28, -0.014), (29, -0.077), (30, -0.025), (31, -0.015), (32, 0.007), (33, 0.005), (34, 0.033), (35, 0.1), (36, 0.018), (37, -0.093), (38, 0.015), (39, -0.014), (40, -0.029), (41, -0.011), (42, 0.045), (43, -0.062), (44, -0.025), (45, -0.023), (46, 0.023), (47, 0.033), (48, 0.042), (49, 0.019)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95361209 366 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-24-Mankiw tax update
Introduction: I was going through the blog and noticed this note on an article by Mankiw and Weinzierl who implied that the state only has a right to tax things that are “unjustly wrestled from someone else.” This didn’t make much sense to me–whether it’s the sales tax, the income tax, or whatever, I see taxes as a way to raise money, not as a form of punishment. At the time, I conjectured this was a general difference in attitude between political scientists and economists, but in retrospect I realize I’m dealing with n=1 in each case. See here for further discussion of taxing “justly acquired endowments.” The only reason I’m bringing this all up now is that I think it is relevant to our recent discussion here and here of Mankiw’s work incentives. Mankiw objected to paying a higher marginal tax rate, and I think part of this is that he sees taxes as a form of punishment, and since he came by his income honestly he doesn’t think it’s fair to have to pay taxes on it. My perspective i
Introduction: Greg Mankiw writes (link from Tyler Cowen ): Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I [Mankiw] turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered? By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working. First, the good news Obama’s tax rates are much lower than Mankiw had anticipated! According to the above quote, his marginal tax rate is currently 80% but threatens to rise to 90%. But, in October 2008, Mankiw calculated that Obama’s would tax his m
3 0.94417232 338 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-12-Update on Mankiw’s work incentives
Introduction: Tyler Cowen links to a blog by Greg Mankiw with further details on his argument that his anticipated 90% marginal tax rate will reduce his work level. Having already given my thoughts on Mankiw’s column, I merely have a few things to add/emphasize. 1. Cowen frames the arguments in terms of the “status” of George Bush, Greg Mankiw, Barack Obama, and their proposed policies. I hadn’t thought of the arguments as being about status, but I think I see what Cowen is saying. By being a well-known economist and having a column in the New York Times, Mankiw is trading some of his status for political advocacy (just as Krugman does, from the opposite direction). If Mankiw didn’t have the pre-existing status, I doubt this particular column would’ve made it into the newspaper. (Again, ditto with many of Krugman’s columns.) So it makes sense that arguments about the substance of Mankiw’s remarks will get tied into disputes about his status. 2. Neither Cowen nor Mankiw address
4 0.94401896 2261 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-23-Greg Mankiw’s utility function
Introduction: From 2010 : Greg Mankiw writes (link from Tyler Cowen ): Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I [Mankiw] turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered? By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working. First, the good news Obama’s tax rates are much lower than Mankiw had anticipated! According to the above quote, his marginal tax rate is currently 80% but threatens to rise to 90%. But, in October 2008, Mankiw calculated that Obama’s
same-blog 5 0.93788642 1728 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-19-The grasshopper wins, and Greg Mankiw’s grandmother would be “shocked and appalled” all over again
Introduction: Given Grandma Mankiw’s hypothetical distaste for Sonia Sotomayor’s spending habits (recall that Grandma “would have been shocked and appalled” by the judge’s lack of savings), I expect she (the grandmother) would be even more irritated by the success of Sotomayor’s recent book: Now that Sotomayor has a ton of money coming in, in addition to a well-paying job and pension for life, that would almost seem to validate Sotomayor’s foolish, foolish decision to enjoy herself in middle age rather than sock hundreds of thousands of dollars into a retirement account she likely would never touch during her lifetime. One interesting thing about this example is that Mankiw apparently holds within himself a descriptive and normative view of economics. Descriptively, he models people as “spenders” or “savers.” But, normatively, he seems to attribute higher values to the “savers.” (He also seems to be confused about the relation between saving to intertemporal preference (see my long p
6 0.80613959 1145 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-30-A tax on inequality, or a tax to keep inequality at the current level?
7 0.76000434 630 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-27-What is an economic “conspiracy theory”?
8 0.74456549 1378 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-13-Economists . . .
9 0.71362746 922 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-Economists don’t think like accountants—but maybe they should
10 0.67203468 1037 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-01-Lamentably common misunderstanding of meritocracy
11 0.66648602 311 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-Where do our taxes go?
12 0.61884886 1693 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Subsidized driving
13 0.60515559 1043 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-Krugman disses Hayek as “being almost entirely about politics rather than economics”
14 0.56326616 495 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-31-“Threshold earners” and economic inequality
15 0.55535197 191 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-08-Angry about the soda tax
16 0.55304813 2292 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-15-When you believe in things that you don’t understand
17 0.5364036 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
18 0.52181202 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum
19 0.51480681 1587 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-21-Red state blue state, or, states and counties are not persons
20 0.50397867 50 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-25-Looking for Sister Right
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.088), (21, 0.245), (24, 0.101), (55, 0.016), (63, 0.021), (74, 0.054), (82, 0.027), (84, 0.018), (89, 0.019), (98, 0.011), (99, 0.219)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95085269 672 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-The R code for those time-use graphs
Introduction: By popular demand, here’s my R script for the time-use graphs : # The data a1 <- c(4.2,3.2,11.1,1.3,2.2,2.0) a2 <- c(3.9,3.2,10.0,0.8,3.1,3.1) a3 <- c(6.3,2.5,9.8,0.9,2.2,2.4) a4 <- c(4.4,3.1,9.8,0.8,3.3,2.7) a5 <- c(4.8,3.0,9.9,0.7,3.3,2.4) a6 <- c(4.0,3.4,10.5,0.7,3.3,2.1) a <- rbind(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6) avg <- colMeans (a) avg.array <- t (array (avg, rev(dim(a)))) diff <- a - avg.array country.name <- c("France", "Germany", "Japan", "Britain", "USA", "Turkey") # The line plots par (mfrow=c(2,3), mar=c(4,4,2,.5), mgp=c(2,.7,0), tck=-.02, oma=c(3,0,4,0), bg="gray96", fg="gray30") for (i in 1:6){ plot (c(1,6), c(-1,1.7), xlab="", ylab="", xaxt="n", yaxt="n", bty="l", type="n") lines (1:6, diff[i,], col="blue") points (1:6, diff[i,], pch=19, col="black") if (i>3){ axis (1, c(1,3,5), c ("Work,\nstudy", "Eat,\nsleep", "Leisure"), mgp=c(2,1.5,0), tck=0, cex.axis=1.2) axis (1, c(2,4,6), c ("Unpaid\nwork", "Personal\nCare", "Other"), mgp=c(2,1.5,0),
2 0.94354546 151 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-16-Wanted: Probability distributions for rank orderings
Introduction: Dietrich Stoyan writes: I asked the IMS people for an expert in statistics of voting/elections and they wrote me your name. I am a statistician, but never worked in the field voting/elections. It was my son-in-law who asked me for statistical theories in that field. He posed in particular the following problem: The aim of the voting is to come to a ranking of c candidates. Every vote is a permutation of these c candidates. The problem is to have probability distributions in the set of all permutations of c elements. Are there theories for such distributions? I should be very grateful for a fast answer with hints to literature. (I confess that I do not know your books.) My reply: Rather than trying to model the ranks directly, I’d recommend modeling a latent continuous outcome which then implies a distribution on ranks, if the ranks are of interest. There are lots of distributions of c-dimensional continuous outcomes. In political science, the usual way to start is
3 0.92982221 1275 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-22-Please stop me before I barf again
Introduction: Pointing to some horrible graphs, Kaiser writes, “The Earth Institute needs a graphics adviser.” I agree. The graphs are corporate standard, neither pretty or innovative enough to qualify as infographics, not informational enough to be good statistical data displays. Some examples include the above exploding pie chart, which, as Kaiser notes, is not merely ugly and ridiculously difficult to read (given that it is conveying only nine data points) but also invites suspicion of its numbers, and pages and pages of graphs that could be better compressed into a compact displays (see pages 25-65 of the report). Yes, this is all better than tables of numbers, but I don’t see that much thought went into displaying patterns of information or telling a story. It’s more graph-as-data-dump. To be fair, the report does have some a clean scatterplot (on page 65). But, overall, the graphs are not well-integrated with the messages in the text. I feel a little bit bad about this, beca
4 0.9228304 432 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-27-Neumann update
Introduction: Steve Hsu, who started off this discussion, had some comments on my speculations on the personality of John von Neumann and others. Steve writes: I [Hsu] actually knew Feynman a bit when I was an undergrad, and found him to be very nice to students. Since then I have heard quite a few stories from people in theoretical physics which emphasize his nastier side, and I think in the end he was quite a complicated person like everyone else. There are a couple of pseudo-biographies of vN, but none as high quality as, e.g., Gleick’s book on Feynman or Hodges book about Turing. (Gleick studied physics as an undergrad at Harvard, and Hodges is a PhD in mathematical physics — pretty rare backgrounds for biographers!) For example, as mentioned on the comment thread to your post, Steve Heims wrote a book about both vN and Wiener (!), and Norman Macrae wrote a biography of vN. Both books are worth reading, but I think neither really do him justice. The breadth of vN’s work is just too m
Introduction: Erin Jonaitis points us to this article by Christopher Ferguson and Moritz Heene, who write: Publication bias remains a controversial issue in psychological science. . . . that the field often constructs arguments to block the publication and interpretation of null results and that null results may be further extinguished through questionable researcher practices. Given that science is dependent on the process of falsification, we argue that these problems reduce psychological science’s capability to have a proper mechanism for theory falsification, thus resulting in the promulgation of numerous “undead” theories that are ideologically popular but have little basis in fact. They mention the infamous Daryl Bem article. It is pretty much only because Bem’s claims are (presumably) false that they got published in a major research journal. Had the claims been true—that is, had Bem run identical experiments, analyzed his data more carefully and objectively, and reported that the r
6 0.91796285 1232 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-27-Banned in NYC school tests
same-blog 8 0.91194892 1728 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-19-The grasshopper wins, and Greg Mankiw’s grandmother would be “shocked and appalled” all over again
9 0.91049135 2298 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-On deck this week
10 0.91021228 1857 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-15-Does quantum uncertainty have a place in everyday applied statistics?
11 0.90572989 894 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-07-Hipmunk FAIL: Graphics without content is not enough
12 0.90570509 62 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-01-Two Postdoc Positions Available on Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling
13 0.89675713 854 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-15-A silly paper that tries to make fun of multilevel models
14 0.89671499 1401 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-30-David Hogg on statistics
15 0.89645386 1675 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-“10 Things You Need to Know About Causal Effects”
17 0.88735914 514 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-13-News coverage of statistical issues…how did I do?
18 0.86998934 659 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-13-Jim Campbell argues that Larry Bartels’s “Unequal Democracy” findings are not robust
19 0.86497515 2272 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-29-I agree with this comment
20 0.85537457 2037 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-25-Classical probability does not apply to quantum systems (causal inference edition)