andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1743 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Political/business negotiation vs. scholarly communication. In a negotiation you hold back, you only make concessions if you have to or in exchange for something else. In scholarly communication you look for your own mistakes, you volunteer information to others, and if someone points out a mistake, you learn from it. (Just a couple days ago, in fact, someone sent me an email showing a problem with bayesglm. I ran and altered his code, and it turned out we had a problem. Based on this information, Yu-Sung found and fixed the code. I was grateful to be informed of the problem.) Not all scholarly exchange goes like this, but that’s the ideal. In contrast, openness and transparency are not ideals in politics and business; in many cases they’re not even desired. If Barack Obama and John Boehner are negotiating on the budget, would it be appropriate for one of them to just start off the negotiations by making a bunch of concessions for free? No, of course not. Negotiation doesn
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 In a negotiation you hold back, you only make concessions if you have to or in exchange for something else. [sent-3, score-0.343]
2 The short version is that, at first I felt no particular reason to doubt his numbers, but after seeing more data, it became pretty clear to me that Unz had made some mistakes in classification and mistakes in data analysis. [sent-16, score-0.233]
3 As I’ve emphasized throughout, this does not make all of Unz’s larger claims false; what this new information does is change the status of Unz’s article from a data-based analysis to an anecdote-based opinion piece containing numbers and comparisons of uneven quality. [sent-17, score-0.256]
4 Mertz came into the picture to shoot down two of the most visible numbers in Unz’s article—two numbers that made it into the New York Times, thus reaching a much broader audience than the readership of the American Conservative and Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. [sent-20, score-0.281]
5 When an expert (or even an informed outsider) says our numbers are wrong, we listen (even if we don’t end up agreeing). [sent-43, score-0.212]
6 For some period of time, Unz has known that an expert in the field thinks his numbers are off by a factor of 5. [sent-48, score-0.196]
7 But he sits on it and then after much criticism on many points, he admits a couple of mistakes but avoids comment on others. [sent-49, score-0.233]
8 We’re playing the academic research game, he’s playing the politics game. [sent-59, score-0.208]
9 I completely respect Unz’s choice to be a political activist and spend his life trying to change the world through political means (or to stop others from instituting what he believes would be negative changes). [sent-62, score-0.33]
10 Calling Unz a political activist or politically-motivated is not an insult. [sent-63, score-0.184]
11 Unz is behaving in a perfectly reasonable way politically , dodging criticism as much as he can, fighting it where appropriate, and occasionally making a strategic concession of as little as possible in order to stay ahead of the story. [sent-68, score-0.228]
12 Lots of people loved the maps, but then I got one criticism from the political blogger Kos. [sent-74, score-0.247]
13 Or maybe he does realize he’s made some big mistakes but he’s holding back on conceding them until he feels the time is right. [sent-94, score-0.176]
14 In Unz’s case, he either knew for weeks or months that some of his numbers were wrong but refused to admit it, or he saw Mertz’s criticism but did not look at it. [sent-99, score-0.343]
15 All I can say on that account is that, when Unz’s article came out a few months ago, I had no problem presenting its claims as stated; it was only after receiving some recent emails with detailed statistics that I got the impression that Unz’s numbers were mistaken. [sent-109, score-0.252]
16 Another possible reason for Unz not to admit some flaws and take a strategic retreat is, of course, that he honestly doesn’t think he made any mistakes (beyond the very few he admitted in his follow-up post). [sent-128, score-0.232]
17 But at the same time he believes so strongly in his conclusions that I suspect he feels that even his false numbers are true in some deeper sense. [sent-133, score-0.198]
18 From a statistical standpoint, this makes no sense: after all, if it’s informative to learn that the proportion of Jews in the math olympiad declined by a shocking factor of 17, then it should be informative (in the other direction) that the decline is only a factor of 2 or so. [sent-136, score-0.315]
19 I’m not placing scholarly values above political values, nor am I implying that scholars always act in how I define the “scholarly” way. [sent-151, score-0.201]
20 Second, although (as I’ve written many times) several of Unz’s points remain relevant even after his errors are corrected, his claim of Harvard discriminating in favor of Jews and his claim of a dramatic drop in Jewish accomplishment do not hold up to scrutiny. [sent-164, score-0.193]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('unz', 0.751), ('mertz', 0.171), ('jewish', 0.147), ('negotiation', 0.139), ('numbers', 0.12), ('jews', 0.119), ('political', 0.106), ('mistakes', 0.096), ('scholarly', 0.095), ('concessions', 0.093), ('criticism', 0.093), ('activist', 0.078), ('factor', 0.076), ('olympiad', 0.076), ('boehner', 0.065), ('academic', 0.065), ('criticisms', 0.062), ('hold', 0.058), ('make', 0.053), ('listen', 0.053), ('politics', 0.051), ('janet', 0.05), ('harvard', 0.049), ('strategic', 0.049), ('claim', 0.048), ('angry', 0.048), ('got', 0.048), ('ron', 0.047), ('negotiating', 0.046), ('concession', 0.046), ('angrily', 0.046), ('pounding', 0.046), ('playing', 0.046), ('math', 0.046), ('admit', 0.046), ('standpoint', 0.044), ('admits', 0.044), ('kos', 0.044), ('wrong', 0.043), ('claims', 0.043), ('made', 0.041), ('decline', 0.041), ('months', 0.041), ('change', 0.04), ('behaving', 0.04), ('criticizing', 0.039), ('feels', 0.039), ('ignore', 0.039), ('even', 0.039), ('desk', 0.037)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000002 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
Introduction: Political/business negotiation vs. scholarly communication. In a negotiation you hold back, you only make concessions if you have to or in exchange for something else. In scholarly communication you look for your own mistakes, you volunteer information to others, and if someone points out a mistake, you learn from it. (Just a couple days ago, in fact, someone sent me an email showing a problem with bayesglm. I ran and altered his code, and it turned out we had a problem. Based on this information, Yu-Sung found and fixed the code. I was grateful to be informed of the problem.) Not all scholarly exchange goes like this, but that’s the ideal. In contrast, openness and transparency are not ideals in politics and business; in many cases they’re not even desired. If Barack Obama and John Boehner are negotiating on the budget, would it be appropriate for one of them to just start off the negotiations by making a bunch of concessions for free? No, of course not. Negotiation doesn
2 0.72754318 1751 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Janet Mertz’s response to “The Myth of American Meritocracy”
Introduction: The following is source material regarding our recent discussion of Jewish admission to Ivy League colleges. I’m posting it for the same reason that I earlier posted a message from Ron Unz, out of a goal to allow the data and arguments to be made as clearly as possible. Janet Mertz writes: I became involved in the discussion of Ron Unz’s Meritocracy article because I am a leading expert on the demographics of top-scoring participants in the high school International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and the US/Canadian inter-collegiate Putnam Mathematics Competition. I have published three peer-reviewed articles that include data directly related to this topic . . . Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. . . . The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy
Introduction: A few months ago we discussed Ron Unz’s claim that Jews are massively overrepresented in Ivy League college admissions, not just in comparison to the general population of college-age Americans, but even in comparison to other white kids with comparable academic ability and preparation. Most of Unz’s article concerns admissions of Asian-Americans, and he also has a proposal to admit certain students at random (see my discussion in the link above). In the present post, I concentrate on the statistics about Jewish students, because this is where I have learned that his statistics are particularly suspect, with various numbers being off by factors of 2 or 4 or more. Unz’s article was discussed, largely favorably, by academic bloggers Tyler Cowen , Steve Hsu , and . . . me! Hsu writes: “Don’t miss the statistical supplement.” But a lot of our trust in those statistics seems to be misplaced. Some people have sent me some information showing serious problems with Unz’s methods
4 0.65065473 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
Introduction: Nurit Baytch posted a document, A Critique of Ron Unz’s Article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” , that is relevant to an ongoing discussion we had on this blog. Baytch’s article begins: In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, claimed that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish white and Asian students in favor of Jewish students. I [Baytch] shall demonstrate that Unz’s conclusion that Jews are over-admitted to Harvard was erroneous, as he relied on faulty assumptions and spurious data: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as my analysis will show. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289
5 0.53238362 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
Introduction: Here. And here’s the story so far: Ron Unz posted a long article on college admissions of Asians and Jews with some numbers and comparisons that made their way into some blogs (including here ) and also a David Brooks NYT column which was read by many people, including Janet Mertz, who’d done previous research on ethnic composition of high-end math students. Mertz contacted me (she’d earlier tried Brooks and others but received no helpful reply), and I posted her findings along with those of another correspondent. Unz then replied , motivating Mertz to write a seven-page document expanding on her earlier emails. Unz responded to that, characterizing Mertz as maybe “emotional” but not actually disputing any of her figures. Unz did, however, make the unconvincing (to me) implication that his original numbers were basically OK even in light of Mertz’s corrections. So Mertz responded once more . (There’s also a side discussion about women’s representation in m
7 0.4562206 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
8 0.4455519 1595 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-28-Should Harvard start admitting kids at random?
10 0.11601774 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
12 0.10614907 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
13 0.10240477 2337 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-18-Never back down: The culture of poverty and the culture of journalism
14 0.097487971 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
17 0.091522552 604 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-08-More on the missing conservative psychology researchers
18 0.089843445 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
19 0.08830034 390 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-02-Fragment of statistical autobiography
20 0.087905839 2279 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-02-Am I too negative?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.237), (1, -0.113), (2, 0.023), (3, -0.002), (4, -0.025), (5, 0.006), (6, 0.083), (7, 0.097), (8, -0.078), (9, -0.055), (10, 0.023), (11, 0.169), (12, -0.382), (13, 0.089), (14, -0.001), (15, 0.471), (16, -0.301), (17, -0.089), (18, 0.108), (19, 0.022), (20, -0.046), (21, -0.022), (22, 0.081), (23, 0.034), (24, -0.071), (25, 0.02), (26, 0.014), (27, -0.042), (28, -0.027), (29, 0.03), (30, -0.034), (31, -0.009), (32, -0.0), (33, -0.013), (34, 0.006), (35, -0.003), (36, -0.033), (37, -0.017), (38, 0.021), (39, -0.01), (40, -0.004), (41, -0.001), (42, -0.011), (43, 0.004), (44, 0.018), (45, -0.036), (46, 0.016), (47, 0.008), (48, 0.015), (49, -0.003)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.98110944 1751 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Janet Mertz’s response to “The Myth of American Meritocracy”
Introduction: The following is source material regarding our recent discussion of Jewish admission to Ivy League colleges. I’m posting it for the same reason that I earlier posted a message from Ron Unz, out of a goal to allow the data and arguments to be made as clearly as possible. Janet Mertz writes: I became involved in the discussion of Ron Unz’s Meritocracy article because I am a leading expert on the demographics of top-scoring participants in the high school International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and the US/Canadian inter-collegiate Putnam Mathematics Competition. I have published three peer-reviewed articles that include data directly related to this topic . . . Had Unz read my 2008 Notices article, he would have known his claim that Jewish achievement in these two competitions had collapsed in the 21st century (which was cited by David Brooks in the New York Times) was simply not true. . . . The primary questions addressed in this article are the following: (i) Do the Ivy
2 0.96542674 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
Introduction: Nurit Baytch posted a document, A Critique of Ron Unz’s Article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” , that is relevant to an ongoing discussion we had on this blog. Baytch’s article begins: In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, claimed that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish white and Asian students in favor of Jewish students. I [Baytch] shall demonstrate that Unz’s conclusion that Jews are over-admitted to Harvard was erroneous, as he relied on faulty assumptions and spurious data: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as my analysis will show. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289
3 0.95771146 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article
Introduction: Here. And here’s the story so far: Ron Unz posted a long article on college admissions of Asians and Jews with some numbers and comparisons that made their way into some blogs (including here ) and also a David Brooks NYT column which was read by many people, including Janet Mertz, who’d done previous research on ethnic composition of high-end math students. Mertz contacted me (she’d earlier tried Brooks and others but received no helpful reply), and I posted her findings along with those of another correspondent. Unz then replied , motivating Mertz to write a seven-page document expanding on her earlier emails. Unz responded to that, characterizing Mertz as maybe “emotional” but not actually disputing any of her figures. Unz did, however, make the unconvincing (to me) implication that his original numbers were basically OK even in light of Mertz’s corrections. So Mertz responded once more . (There’s also a side discussion about women’s representation in m
Introduction: A few months ago we discussed Ron Unz’s claim that Jews are massively overrepresented in Ivy League college admissions, not just in comparison to the general population of college-age Americans, but even in comparison to other white kids with comparable academic ability and preparation. Most of Unz’s article concerns admissions of Asian-Americans, and he also has a proposal to admit certain students at random (see my discussion in the link above). In the present post, I concentrate on the statistics about Jewish students, because this is where I have learned that his statistics are particularly suspect, with various numbers being off by factors of 2 or 4 or more. Unz’s article was discussed, largely favorably, by academic bloggers Tyler Cowen , Steve Hsu , and . . . me! Hsu writes: “Don’t miss the statistical supplement.” But a lot of our trust in those statistics seems to be misplaced. Some people have sent me some information showing serious problems with Unz’s methods
same-blog 5 0.93428868 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
Introduction: Political/business negotiation vs. scholarly communication. In a negotiation you hold back, you only make concessions if you have to or in exchange for something else. In scholarly communication you look for your own mistakes, you volunteer information to others, and if someone points out a mistake, you learn from it. (Just a couple days ago, in fact, someone sent me an email showing a problem with bayesglm. I ran and altered his code, and it turned out we had a problem. Based on this information, Yu-Sung found and fixed the code. I was grateful to be informed of the problem.) Not all scholarly exchange goes like this, but that’s the ideal. In contrast, openness and transparency are not ideals in politics and business; in many cases they’re not even desired. If Barack Obama and John Boehner are negotiating on the budget, would it be appropriate for one of them to just start off the negotiations by making a bunch of concessions for free? No, of course not. Negotiation doesn
7 0.8784405 1730 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-20-Unz on Unz
8 0.79549474 1595 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-28-Should Harvard start admitting kids at random?
9 0.54457235 1025 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-24-Always check your evidence
11 0.52120745 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
12 0.50733346 2107 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-20-NYT (non)-retraction watch
13 0.49302036 598 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-03-Is Harvard hurting poor kids by cutting tuition for the upper middle class?
14 0.48857862 135 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-09-Rasmussen sez: “108% of Respondents Say . . .”
15 0.46414337 1727 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-19-Beef with data
16 0.44607002 189 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-06-Proposal for a moratorium on the use of the words “fashionable” and “trendy”
17 0.44133487 1271 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Education could use some systematic evaluation
18 0.42223856 677 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-24-My NOAA story
19 0.42209059 1930 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-09-Symposium Magazine
20 0.41715613 1866 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-21-Recently in the sister blog
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.014), (8, 0.014), (15, 0.034), (16, 0.083), (21, 0.02), (24, 0.122), (30, 0.023), (63, 0.015), (82, 0.015), (86, 0.094), (92, 0.07), (95, 0.017), (99, 0.278)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96887857 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
Introduction: Political/business negotiation vs. scholarly communication. In a negotiation you hold back, you only make concessions if you have to or in exchange for something else. In scholarly communication you look for your own mistakes, you volunteer information to others, and if someone points out a mistake, you learn from it. (Just a couple days ago, in fact, someone sent me an email showing a problem with bayesglm. I ran and altered his code, and it turned out we had a problem. Based on this information, Yu-Sung found and fixed the code. I was grateful to be informed of the problem.) Not all scholarly exchange goes like this, but that’s the ideal. In contrast, openness and transparency are not ideals in politics and business; in many cases they’re not even desired. If Barack Obama and John Boehner are negotiating on the budget, would it be appropriate for one of them to just start off the negotiations by making a bunch of concessions for free? No, of course not. Negotiation doesn
2 0.96830761 1278 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-23-“Any old map will do” meets “God is in every leaf of every tree”
Introduction: As a statistician I am particularly worried about the rhetorical power of anecdotes (even though I use them in my own reasoning; see discussion below). But much can be learned from a true anecdote. The rough edges—the places where the anecdote doesn’t fit your thesis—these are where you learn. We have recently had a discussion ( here and here ) of Karl Weick, a prominent scholar of business management who plagiarized a story and then went on to draw different lessons from the pilfered anecdote in several different publications published over many years. Setting aside an issues of plagiarism and rulebreaking, I argue that, by hiding the source of the story and changing its form, Weick and his management-science audience are losing their ability to get anything out of it beyond empty confirmation. A full discussion follows. 1. The lost Hungarian soldiers Thomas Basbøll (who has the unusual (to me) job of “writing consultant” at the Copenhagen Business School) has been
Introduction: A few months ago we discussed Ron Unz’s claim that Jews are massively overrepresented in Ivy League college admissions, not just in comparison to the general population of college-age Americans, but even in comparison to other white kids with comparable academic ability and preparation. Most of Unz’s article concerns admissions of Asian-Americans, and he also has a proposal to admit certain students at random (see my discussion in the link above). In the present post, I concentrate on the statistics about Jewish students, because this is where I have learned that his statistics are particularly suspect, with various numbers being off by factors of 2 or 4 or more. Unz’s article was discussed, largely favorably, by academic bloggers Tyler Cowen , Steve Hsu , and . . . me! Hsu writes: “Don’t miss the statistical supplement.” But a lot of our trust in those statistics seems to be misplaced. Some people have sent me some information showing serious problems with Unz’s methods
4 0.96308541 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update
Introduction: Nurit Baytch posted a document, A Critique of Ron Unz’s Article “The Myth of American Meritocracy” , that is relevant to an ongoing discussion we had on this blog. Baytch’s article begins: In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Ron Unz, the publisher of The American Conservative, claimed that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish white and Asian students in favor of Jewish students. I [Baytch] shall demonstrate that Unz’s conclusion that Jews are over-admitted to Harvard was erroneous, as he relied on faulty assumptions and spurious data: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy, as my analysis will show. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289
5 0.96254396 1266 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-16-Another day, another plagiarist
Introduction: This one isn’t actually new, but it’s new to me. It involves University of Michigan business school professor Karl Weick. Here’s the relevant paragraph of Weick’s Wikipedia entry (as of 13 Apr 2012): In several published articles, Weick related a story that originally appeared in a poem by Miroslav Holub that was published in the Times Literary Supplement. Weick plagiarized Holub in that he republished the poem (with some minor differences, including removing line breaks and making small changes in a few words) without quotation or attribution. Some of Weick’s articles included the material with no reference to Holub; others referred to Holub but without indicating that Weick had essentially done a direct copy of Holub’s writing. The plagiarism was detailed in an article by Thomas Basbøll and Henrik Graham. [5] In a response, Weick disputed the claim of plagiarism, writing, “By the time I began to see the Alps story as an example of cognition in the path of the action, I had lo
6 0.96070063 2058 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-11-Gladwell and Chabris, David and Goliath, and science writing as stone soup
7 0.96051276 1971 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-07-I doubt they cheated
8 0.95842898 781 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-28-The holes in my philosophy of Bayesian data analysis
9 0.95785612 20 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-07-Bayesian hierarchical model for the prediction of soccer results
10 0.95697796 1983 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-More on AIC, WAIC, etc
11 0.95604187 2182 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-22-Spell-checking example demonstrates key aspects of Bayesian data analysis
12 0.9551748 1563 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-05-Someone is wrong on the internet, part 2
13 0.95443106 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
14 0.95414251 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
16 0.95221531 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
17 0.95151532 2260 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-22-Postdoc at Rennes on multilevel missing data imputation
18 0.95016497 276 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Don’t look at just one poll number–unless you really know what you’re doing!
19 0.9498446 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
20 0.94968468 1751 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-06-Janet Mertz’s response to “The Myth of American Meritocracy”