andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1832 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I encourage you to check out our linked blogs . Here’s what they’re all about: Cognitive and Behavioral Science BPS Research Digest : I haven’t been following this one recently, but it has lots of good links, I should probably check it more often. There are a couple things that bother me, though. The blog is sponsored by the British Psychological Society, so this sounds pretty serious. But then they run things like advertising promotions sponsored by a textbook company and highlight iffy experimental claims. For example, in 2010 they ran a wholly uncritical post on the notorious Daryl Bem study that purported to find ESP. After being called on it in the comments, the blogger (Christian Jarrett) responded with, “The stats appear sound. . . . it’s a great study. Rigorously conducted” and even defended “the discussion of quantum physics in the paper.” To be fair, though, and as he points out in comments, Jarrett wrote of Bem’s study: “this isn’t proof of psi, far fr
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Here’s what they’re all about: Cognitive and Behavioral Science BPS Research Digest : I haven’t been following this one recently, but it has lots of good links, I should probably check it more often. [sent-2, score-0.13]
2 The blog is sponsored by the British Psychological Society, so this sounds pretty serious. [sent-4, score-0.215]
3 But then they run things like advertising promotions sponsored by a textbook company and highlight iffy experimental claims. [sent-5, score-0.328]
4 After being called on it in the comments, the blogger (Christian Jarrett) responded with, “The stats appear sound. [sent-7, score-0.156]
5 I can’t imagine anyone would pay enough to a niche blogger to make the ads worth it. [sent-24, score-0.288]
6 I mean, sure, if an advertiser offered me enough money for me to hire a postdoc, I’d do it, but I can only imagine we’re talking really small amounts of money. [sent-25, score-0.141]
7 Cultural Light Reading : She’s like me, she likes to write and has a lot of energy. [sent-34, score-0.155]
8 Love the Liberry : Amazingly enough, they keep coming up with good material. [sent-37, score-0.13]
9 An official American Statistical Association blog seems like a good thing but I don’t really know what to do with it. [sent-51, score-0.295]
10 Monthly Labor Review : Direct links to research on things that matter. [sent-58, score-0.242]
11 They say ads are an evil destructive manipulative force that exists only because big bad firms run the world, and use ads to control us all. [sent-61, score-0.721]
12 ” I was surprised to hear that most people Robin Hanson knows talk that way, and this gives me a new perspective on why he writes the way he does. [sent-62, score-0.14]
13 It’s gotta be frustrating, hanging around people who talk about big bad firms and evil destructive manipulative forces. [sent-63, score-0.502]
14 Rajiv Sethi : He only blogs a couple times a month, but he always has something interesting to say. [sent-64, score-0.21]
15 Census Blog : Not the funnest thing out there to read, but it’s good that the people at the Census are doing this for us. [sent-70, score-0.13]
16 When you need good data, the Census is there for you. [sent-71, score-0.13]
17 Her blog features long comment threads and contributions from the likes of Stephen Senn. [sent-80, score-0.192]
18 Among many other things, he offered a good probabilistic summary of the Lance Armstrong story, well before it finally broke. [sent-84, score-0.206]
19 Larry Wasserman : His perspective on statistics is different from mine (for example, he defines p(a|b) = p(a,b)/p(b), whereas I define p(a,b)=p(a|b)p(b)), but it’s good that he can get his views out there. [sent-85, score-0.359]
20 I’m impressed by these CS guys who can effortlessly throw around terabytes of data. [sent-91, score-0.132]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('jarrett', 0.216), ('blogs', 0.147), ('ads', 0.142), ('good', 0.13), ('bem', 0.125), ('manipulative', 0.123), ('census', 0.119), ('destructive', 0.118), ('sponsored', 0.114), ('denial', 0.114), ('blog', 0.101), ('evil', 0.101), ('firms', 0.095), ('likes', 0.091), ('graphics', 0.09), ('links', 0.09), ('things', 0.088), ('mayo', 0.087), ('nate', 0.083), ('statistics', 0.082), ('blogger', 0.081), ('love', 0.08), ('christian', 0.08), ('science', 0.079), ('name', 0.079), ('offered', 0.076), ('stuff', 0.076), ('stats', 0.075), ('perspective', 0.075), ('mine', 0.072), ('news', 0.07), ('read', 0.068), ('blogging', 0.067), ('guys', 0.067), ('blanche', 0.065), ('effortlessly', 0.065), ('liberry', 0.065), ('nitty', 0.065), ('debutante', 0.065), ('talk', 0.065), ('enough', 0.065), ('research', 0.064), ('psychological', 0.064), ('like', 0.064), ('needs', 0.063), ('times', 0.063), ('language', 0.062), ('recently', 0.062), ('wholly', 0.062), ('promotions', 0.062)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999958 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
Introduction: I encourage you to check out our linked blogs . Here’s what they’re all about: Cognitive and Behavioral Science BPS Research Digest : I haven’t been following this one recently, but it has lots of good links, I should probably check it more often. There are a couple things that bother me, though. The blog is sponsored by the British Psychological Society, so this sounds pretty serious. But then they run things like advertising promotions sponsored by a textbook company and highlight iffy experimental claims. For example, in 2010 they ran a wholly uncritical post on the notorious Daryl Bem study that purported to find ESP. After being called on it in the comments, the blogger (Christian Jarrett) responded with, “The stats appear sound. . . . it’s a great study. Rigorously conducted” and even defended “the discussion of quantum physics in the paper.” To be fair, though, and as he points out in comments, Jarrett wrote of Bem’s study: “this isn’t proof of psi, far fr
2 0.20210186 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
Introduction: Rajiv Sethi writes : I suspect that within a decade, blogs will be a cornerstone of research in economics. Many original and creative contributions to the discipline will first be communicated to the profession (and the world at large) in the form of blog posts, since the medium allows for material of arbitrary length, depth and complexity. Ideas first expressed in this form will make their way (with suitable attribution) into reading lists, doctoral dissertations and more conventionally refereed academic publications. And blogs will come to play a central role in the process of recruitment, promotion and reward at major research universities. This genie is not going back into its bottle. And he thinks this is a good thing: In fact, the refereeing process for blog posts is in some respects more rigorous than that for journal articles. Reports are numerous, non-anonymous, public, rapidly and efficiently produced, and collaboratively constructed. It is not obvious to me [Sethi]
3 0.16950262 2002 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-30-Blogging
Introduction: A journalist asked me for my thoughts on academics and blogging, in light of the recently announced move of the sister blog to the Washington Post. I responded as follows: John Sides is the leader of the Monkey Cage and in particular was the key person involved in the Washington Post move. But I will give you some general comments based on my own experiences. I started blogging in 2004: Samantha Cook (my postdoc at the time) and I set up the blog so that we could communicate our partially-formed research ideas to each other, in a way that would be open to the world so that (a) we could get input from interested outsiders, and (b) we could publicize our work. We decided to post daily (or approximately thus). At the time, I figured that if there was ever a time that we ran out of material, I could post summaries of my old research papers. The blog quickly became a place for us to give our various thoughts on statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science.
4 0.16439191 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
Introduction: I’m postponing today’s scheduled post (“Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models”) to continue the lively discussion from yesterday, What if I were to stop publishing in journals? . An example: my papers with Basbøll Thomas Basbøll and I got into a long discussion on our blogs about business school professor Karl Weick and other cases of plagiarism copying text without attribution. We felt it useful to take our ideas to the next level and write them up as a manuscript, which ended up being logical to split into two papers. At that point I put some effort into getting these papers published, which I eventually did: To throw away data: Plagiarism as a statistical crime went into American Scientist and When do stories work? Evidence and illustration in the social sciences will appear in Sociological Methods and Research. The second paper, in particular, took some effort to place; I got some advice from colleagues in sociology as to where
5 0.14753979 1678 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-17-Wanted: 365 stories of statistics
Introduction: The American Statistical Association has a blog called the Statistics Forum that I edit but haven’t been doing much with. Originally I thought we’d get a bunch of bloggers and have a topic each week or each month and get discussions from lots of perspectives. But it was hard to get people to keep contributing, and the blog+comments approach didn’t seem to be working as a way to get wide-ranging discussion. I did organize a good roundtable discussion at one point, but it took a lot of work on my part. Recently I had another idea for the blog, based on something that Kaiser Fung wrote on three hours in the life of a statistician , along with a similar (if a bit more impressionistic) piece I wrote awhile back describing my experiences on a typical workday. So here’s the plan. 365 of you write vignettes about your statistical lives. Get into the nitty gritty—tell me what you do, and why you’re doing it. I’ll collect these and then post them at the Statistics Forum, one a day
6 0.14389369 390 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-02-Fragment of statistical autobiography
9 0.14048482 2279 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-02-Am I too negative?
10 0.13845271 1848 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-09-A tale of two discussion papers
11 0.13715026 855 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-16-Infovis and statgraphics update update
13 0.1357201 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
14 0.13459048 1389 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-23-Larry Wasserman’s statistics blog
15 0.13367505 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
16 0.12947291 1634 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-21-Two reviews of Nate Silver’s new book, from Kaiser Fung and Cathy O’Neil
17 0.12529695 49 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-24-Blogging
18 0.12437555 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
19 0.12056796 6 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-27-Jelte Wicherts lays down the stats on IQ
20 0.11932347 30 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-13-Trips to Cleveland
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.322), (1, -0.139), (2, -0.141), (3, 0.07), (4, -0.007), (5, -0.019), (6, -0.0), (7, -0.007), (8, 0.029), (9, -0.002), (10, 0.008), (11, -0.025), (12, 0.057), (13, 0.024), (14, -0.088), (15, 0.017), (16, -0.074), (17, 0.032), (18, 0.025), (19, 0.007), (20, 0.042), (21, -0.051), (22, -0.053), (23, 0.043), (24, 0.007), (25, 0.01), (26, -0.057), (27, 0.024), (28, -0.024), (29, -0.008), (30, 0.002), (31, -0.012), (32, 0.055), (33, -0.029), (34, 0.015), (35, 0.05), (36, 0.085), (37, 0.019), (38, -0.027), (39, -0.029), (40, 0.0), (41, -0.033), (42, 0.006), (43, 0.009), (44, 0.059), (45, 0.068), (46, 0.008), (47, -0.028), (48, 0.016), (49, 0.019)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98274481 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
Introduction: I encourage you to check out our linked blogs . Here’s what they’re all about: Cognitive and Behavioral Science BPS Research Digest : I haven’t been following this one recently, but it has lots of good links, I should probably check it more often. There are a couple things that bother me, though. The blog is sponsored by the British Psychological Society, so this sounds pretty serious. But then they run things like advertising promotions sponsored by a textbook company and highlight iffy experimental claims. For example, in 2010 they ran a wholly uncritical post on the notorious Daryl Bem study that purported to find ESP. After being called on it in the comments, the blogger (Christian Jarrett) responded with, “The stats appear sound. . . . it’s a great study. Rigorously conducted” and even defended “the discussion of quantum physics in the paper.” To be fair, though, and as he points out in comments, Jarrett wrote of Bem’s study: “this isn’t proof of psi, far fr
2 0.83922881 1007 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-At last, treated with the disrespect that I deserve
Introduction: I was at a work-related event today [actually, last month; these non-topical blog entries are on approximately one-month delay], but not connected to the statistics or political science departments. There were a few people there I knew well, and they were introducing me to others. Then at some point when I was talking with one of the more important people in the room, a sixtyish guy comes by and stands next to us. I put out my hand and introduce myself. He looks at me in puzzlement, spits out his first name, and without a pause starts talking to the person I’d been speaking with. After about a minute of talk, he walks away, and the important person and I continued our conversation. No big deal . . . but, I have to admit, I haven’t had that experience very often recently. I’m often at events where I know everyone (or almost everyone) and they know me, and I’m also often at events where I know very few people and have to introduce myself. But it’s rare to be somewhere where I’m
3 0.82958007 204 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Sloppily-written slam on moderately celebrated writers is amusing nonetheless
Introduction: Via J. Robert Lennon , I discovered this amusing blog by Anis Shivani on “The 15 Most Overrated Contemporary American Writers.” Lennon found it so annoying that he refused to even link to it, but I actually enjoyed Shivani’s bit of performance art. The literary criticism I see is so focused on individual books that it’s refreshing to see someone take on an entire author’s career in a single paragraph. I agree with Lennon that Shivani’s blog doesn’t have much content –it’s full of terms such as “vacuity” and “pap,” compared to which “trendy” and “fashionable” are precision instruments–but Shivani covers a lot of ground and it’s fun to see this all in one place. My main complaint with Shivani, beyond his sloppy writing (but, hey, it’s just a blog; I’m sure he saves the good stuff for his paid gigs) is his implicit assumption that everyone should agree with him. I’m as big a Kazin fan as anyone, but I still think he completely undervalued Marquand . The other thing I noticed
4 0.82134598 865 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-22-Blogging is “destroying the business model for quality”?
Introduction: Journalist Jonathan Rauch writes that the internet is Sturgeon squared: This is the blogosphere. I’m not getting paid to be here. I’m here to get incredibly famous (in my case, even more incredibly famous) so that I can get paid somewhere else. . . . The average quality of newspapers and (published) novels is far, far better than the average quality of blog posts (and–ugh!–comments). This is because people pay for newspapers and novels. What distinguishes newspapers and novels is how much does not get published in them, because people won’t pay for it. Payment is a filter, and a pretty good one. Imperfect, of course. But pointing out the defects of the old model is merely changing the subject if the new model is worse. . . . Yes, the new model is bringing a lot of new content into being. But most of it is bad. And it’s displacing a lot of better content, by destroying the business model for quality. Even in the information economy, there’s no free lunch. . . . Yes, there’s g
5 0.81587261 263 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-08-The China Study: fact or fallacy?
Introduction: Alex Chernavsky writes: I recently came across an interesting blog post , written by someone who is self-taught in statistics (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I have no particular expertise in statistics, but her analysis looks impressive to me. I’d be very interested to find out the opinion of a professional statistician. Do you have any interest in blogging about this subject? My (disappointing, I’m sure) reply: This indeed looks interesting. I don’t have the time/energy to look at it more right now, and it’s too far from any areas of my expertise for me to give any kind of quick informed opinion. It would be good for this sort of discussion to appear in a nutrition journal where the real experts could get at it. I expect there are some strong statisticians who work in that field, although I don’t really know for sure. P.S. I suppose I really should try to learn more about this sort of thing, as it could well affect my life more than a lot of other subje
6 0.81076038 49 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-24-Blogging
7 0.80220807 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
8 0.80190557 949 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-10-Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
9 0.80147678 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
10 0.79336208 868 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-24-Blogs vs. real journalism
11 0.79186964 1033 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-28-Greece to head statistician: Tell the truth, go to jail
13 0.78734177 640 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-31-Why Edit Wikipedia?
14 0.77626008 30 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-13-Trips to Cleveland
15 0.77625227 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
16 0.77344728 103 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-22-Beach reads, Proust, and income tax
17 0.77085888 1678 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-17-Wanted: 365 stories of statistics
20 0.76595414 582 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-20-Statisticians vs. everybody else
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.029), (15, 0.057), (16, 0.08), (21, 0.046), (24, 0.116), (53, 0.015), (62, 0.075), (77, 0.022), (84, 0.011), (86, 0.017), (90, 0.016), (95, 0.02), (98, 0.012), (99, 0.295)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.97588587 715 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-16-“It doesn’t matter if you believe in God. What matters is if God believes in you.”
Introduction: Mark Chaves sent me this great article on religion and religious practice: After reading a book or article in the scientific study of religion, I [Chaves] wonder if you ever find yourself thinking, “I just don’t believe it.” I have this experience uncomfortably often, and I think it’s because of a pervasive problem in the scientific study of religion. I want to describe that problem and how to overcome it. The problem is illustrated in a story told by Meyer Fortes. He once asked a rainmaker in a native culture he was studying to perform the rainmaking ceremony for him. The rainmaker refused, replying: “Don’t be a fool, whoever makes a rain-making ceremony in the dry season?” The problem is illustrated in a different way in a story told by Jay Demerath. He was in Israel, visiting friends for a Sabbath dinner. The man of the house, a conservative rabbi, stopped in the middle of chanting the prayers to say cheerfully: “You know, we don’t believe in any of this. But then in Judai
2 0.97134483 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
Introduction: There has been an increasing discussion about the proliferation of flawed research in psychology and medicine, with some landmark events being John Ioannides’s article , “Why most published research findings are false” (according to Google Scholar, cited 973 times since its appearance in 2005), the scandals of Marc Hauser and Diederik Stapel, two leading psychology professors who resigned after disclosures of scientific misconduct, and Daryl Bem’s dubious recent paper on ESP, published to much fanfare in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, one of the top journals in the field. Alongside all this are the plagiarism scandals, which are uninteresting from a scientific context but are relevant in that, in many cases, neither the institutions housing the plagiarists nor the editors and publishers of the plagiarized material seem to care. Perhaps these universities and publishers are more worried about bad publicity (and maybe lawsuits, given that many of the plagiarism cas
same-blog 3 0.96528643 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
Introduction: I encourage you to check out our linked blogs . Here’s what they’re all about: Cognitive and Behavioral Science BPS Research Digest : I haven’t been following this one recently, but it has lots of good links, I should probably check it more often. There are a couple things that bother me, though. The blog is sponsored by the British Psychological Society, so this sounds pretty serious. But then they run things like advertising promotions sponsored by a textbook company and highlight iffy experimental claims. For example, in 2010 they ran a wholly uncritical post on the notorious Daryl Bem study that purported to find ESP. After being called on it in the comments, the blogger (Christian Jarrett) responded with, “The stats appear sound. . . . it’s a great study. Rigorously conducted” and even defended “the discussion of quantum physics in the paper.” To be fair, though, and as he points out in comments, Jarrett wrote of Bem’s study: “this isn’t proof of psi, far fr
4 0.96241826 1414 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-12-Steven Pinker’s unconvincing debunking of group selection
Introduction: Steven Pinker writes : Human beings live in groups, are affected by the fortunes of their groups, and sometimes make sacrifices that benefit their groups. Does this mean that the human brain has been shaped by natural selection to promote the welfare of the group in competition with other groups, even when it damages the welfare of the person and his or her kin? . . . Several scientists whom I [Pinker] greatly respect have said so in prominent places. And they have gone on to use the theory of group selection to make eye-opening claims about the human condition. They have claimed that human morailty, particularly our willingness to engage in acts of altruism, can be explained as an adaptation to group-against-group competition. As E. O. Wilson explains, “In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals.” . . . I [Pinker] am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the q
5 0.96238792 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
Introduction: This seems to be the topic of the week. Yesterday I posted on the sister blog some further thoughts on those “Psychological Science” papers on menstrual cycles, biceps size, and political attitudes, tied to a horrible press release from the journal Psychological Science hyping the biceps and politics study. Then I was pointed to these suggestions from Richard Lucas and M. Brent Donnellan have on improving the replicability and reproducibility of research published in the Journal of Research in Personality: It goes without saying that editors of scientific journals strive to publish research that is not only theoretically interesting but also methodologically rigorous. The goal is to select papers that advance the field. Accordingly, editors want to publish findings that can be reproduced and replicated by other scientists. Unfortunately, there has been a recent “crisis in confidence” among psychologists about the quality of psychological research (Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012)
7 0.96206301 2227 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-27-“What Can we Learn from the Many Labs Replication Project?”
9 0.95981431 1848 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-09-A tale of two discussion papers
10 0.95971382 2007 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Popper and Jaynes
11 0.95941675 1774 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-22-Likelihood Ratio ≠ 1 Journal
12 0.95937216 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
14 0.9574492 431 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-26-One fun thing about physicists . . .
15 0.95708251 2337 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-18-Never back down: The culture of poverty and the culture of journalism
16 0.95704609 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
18 0.9559918 2091 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-06-“Marginally significant”
19 0.95582545 785 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-02-Experimental reasoning in social science
20 0.95560384 1591 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-Politics as an escape hatch