andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1850 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Dave Berri posted the following at the Freakonomics blog: The “best” picture of 2012 was Argo. At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . In other words, this choice is made by the “experts.” There is, though, another group that we could have listened to on Sunday night. That group would be the people who actually spend money to go to the movies. . . . According to that group, Marvel’s the Avengers was the “best” picture in 2012. With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. And when we look at world-wide revenues, this film brought in more than $1.5 billion. . . . Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. Perhaps this is just because I am an econo
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. [sent-2, score-0.255]
2 According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. [sent-3, score-0.236]
3 With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. [sent-14, score-0.457]
4 Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. [sent-20, score-0.277]
5 And yet, when it comes time to decide which picture is “best,” the opinion of the general public seems to be ignored. [sent-24, score-0.269]
6 Essentially the Oscars are an industry statement to their customers that says: “We don’t think our customers are smart enough to tell us which of our products are good. [sent-25, score-0.645]
7 ” He keeps going along those lines for awhile and concludes: One would hope the Academy would at least pay a bit more attention to the people paying the bills. [sent-27, score-0.195]
8 Not only does it seem wrong (at least to this economist) to argue that movies many people like are simply not that good, focusing on the box office would seem to make good financial sense for the Oscars as well. [sent-28, score-0.35]
9 A recent Slate article argued that the Oscars’ telecast tends to have higher ratings when more commercially successful films are nominated for best picture. [sent-29, score-0.333]
10 These customers may not be thought of as “movie experts. [sent-31, score-0.277]
11 ” But these are the people who pay the bills, and therefore, ultimately it is their opinion that should matter to this industry. [sent-32, score-0.216]
12 What strikes me about this discussion is the mix of descriptive and normative that seems so characteristic of pop-microeconomics. [sent-33, score-0.316]
13 On one hand, you have the purely descriptive perspective: economist as person-from-Mars, looking at human society objectively, the way a scientist studies cell cultures in a test tube. [sent-37, score-0.235]
14 The Avengers is the best movie because it made more money. [sent-43, score-0.317]
15 ” The difficulty, of course, is that lesson 2 gets blurred if it is folded into lesson 1. [sent-45, score-0.356]
16 Berri’s argument is that moviemakers should not be paternalistically ignoring the attitudes of their customers in giving awards. [sent-46, score-0.423]
17 But this argument dissolves if you take one step back and consider moviemakers as independent business operators. [sent-47, score-0.208]
18 In that case, their business decisions (to do the Oscars however they want) should be given as much respect as that of moviegoers to choose which movies to watch. [sent-48, score-0.43]
19 What’s interesting to me here is to see how the economist’s explicitly non-normative ideology (his implication that the “best” picture must be the one with most revenue, and that any other criteria would be disrespectful of moviegoers) so quickly becomes normative (that it’s “wrong . [sent-50, score-0.361]
20 to argue that movies many people like are simply not that good”). [sent-53, score-0.35]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('oscars', 0.437), ('customers', 0.277), ('avengers', 0.24), ('movies', 0.208), ('picture', 0.181), ('academy', 0.163), ('moviegoers', 0.16), ('moviemakers', 0.146), ('economist', 0.146), ('best', 0.138), ('pay', 0.128), ('revenues', 0.127), ('berri', 0.127), ('strikes', 0.12), ('film', 0.117), ('lesson', 0.107), ('bills', 0.107), ('normative', 0.107), ('made', 0.093), ('industry', 0.091), ('descriptive', 0.089), ('opinion', 0.088), ('movie', 0.086), ('group', 0.079), ('simply', 0.078), ('members', 0.076), ('marvel', 0.073), ('ventures', 0.073), ('disrespectful', 0.073), ('oscar', 0.073), ('bookmakers', 0.073), ('filmed', 0.073), ('folded', 0.073), ('million', 0.07), ('blurred', 0.069), ('ceremony', 0.069), ('commercially', 0.069), ('argo', 0.069), ('attention', 0.067), ('nearly', 0.067), ('nominated', 0.066), ('argue', 0.064), ('mars', 0.063), ('business', 0.062), ('films', 0.06), ('revenue', 0.06), ('offended', 0.06), ('listened', 0.06), ('domestic', 0.06), ('earned', 0.06)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 1850 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-10-The recursion of pop-econ
Introduction: Dave Berri posted the following at the Freakonomics blog: The “best” picture of 2012 was Argo. At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . In other words, this choice is made by the “experts.” There is, though, another group that we could have listened to on Sunday night. That group would be the people who actually spend money to go to the movies. . . . According to that group, Marvel’s the Avengers was the “best” picture in 2012. With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. And when we look at world-wide revenues, this film brought in more than $1.5 billion. . . . Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. Perhaps this is just because I am an econo
2 0.12204055 1596 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-29-More consulting experiences, this time in computational linguistics
Introduction: Bob wrote this long comment that I think is worth posting: I [Bob] have done a fair bit of consulting for my small natural language processing company over the past ten years. Like statistics, natural language processing is something may companies think they want, but have no idea how to do themselves. We almost always handed out “free” consulting. Usually on the phone to people who called us out of the blue. Our blog and tutorials Google ranking was pretty much our only approach to marketing other than occassionally going to business-oriented conferences. Our goal was to sell software licenses (because consulting doesn’t scale nor does it provide continuing royalty income), but since so few people knew how to use toolkits like ours, we had to help them along the way. We even provided “free” consulting with our startup license package. We were brutally honest with customers, both about our goals and their goals. Their goals were often incompatible with ours (use company X’
3 0.11852053 1298 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-News from the sister blog!
Introduction: US National Academy of Sciences elects 84 new members (Please click through and read the whole thing.)
4 0.094909608 2103 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-16-Objects of the class “Objects of the class”
Introduction: Objects of the class “Foghorn Leghorn” : parodies that are more famous than the original. (“It would be as if everybody were familiar with Duchamp’s Mona-Lisa-with-a-moustache while never having heard of Leonardo’s version.”) Objects of the class “Whoopi Goldberg” : actors who are undeniably talented but are almost always in bad movies, or at least movies that aren’t worthy of their talent. (The opposite: William Holden.) Objects of the class “Weekend at Bernie’s” : low-quality movie, nobody’s actually seen it, but everybody knows what it’s about. (Other examples: Heathers and Zelig.) I love these. We need some more.
5 0.093539067 1804 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-15-How effective are football coaches?
Introduction: Dave Berri writes : A recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly suggests that these moves may not lead to the happiness the fans envision (HT: the Sports Economist). E. Scott Adler, Michael J. Berry, and David Doherty looked at coaching changes from 1997 to 2010. What they found should give pause to people who demanded a coaching change (or still hope for one). Here is how these authors summarize their findings: . . . we use matching techniques to compare the performance of football programs that replaced their head coach to those where the coach was retained. The analysis has two major innovations over existing literature. First, we consider how entry conditions moderate the effects of coaching replacements. Second, we examine team performance for several years following the replacement to assess its effects. We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that
6 0.092534214 60 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-30-What Auteur Theory and Freshwater Economics have in common
7 0.091787674 1248 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-06-17 groups, 6 group-level predictors: What to do?
8 0.087738849 764 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-Examining US Legislative process with “Many Bills”
9 0.087442368 1742 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-27-What is “explanation”?
10 0.086814418 439 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-Of psychology research and investment tips
11 0.084888116 1717 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-10-Psychology can be improved by adding some economics
12 0.084271282 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
14 0.080464989 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
15 0.080276504 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
16 0.078432038 2070 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-20-The institution of tenure
17 0.077698432 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
18 0.077632315 2197 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-04-Peabody here.
19 0.075082541 489 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-28-Brow inflation
20 0.074407801 389 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Why it can be rational to vote
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.15), (1, -0.075), (2, 0.024), (3, 0.029), (4, -0.016), (5, -0.011), (6, 0.026), (7, 0.009), (8, 0.026), (9, 0.031), (10, -0.048), (11, -0.029), (12, -0.002), (13, 0.011), (14, -0.03), (15, -0.003), (16, 0.013), (17, 0.013), (18, 0.009), (19, 0.01), (20, -0.017), (21, -0.029), (22, 0.015), (23, 0.001), (24, -0.017), (25, -0.02), (26, 0.042), (27, 0.009), (28, -0.002), (29, 0.02), (30, -0.012), (31, -0.023), (32, 0.015), (33, -0.001), (34, 0.037), (35, -0.02), (36, -0.005), (37, 0.021), (38, -0.017), (39, 0.048), (40, 0.006), (41, -0.042), (42, -0.034), (43, 0.009), (44, 0.002), (45, 0.008), (46, 0.011), (47, 0.005), (48, 0.016), (49, -0.051)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95768774 1850 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-10-The recursion of pop-econ
Introduction: Dave Berri posted the following at the Freakonomics blog: The “best” picture of 2012 was Argo. At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . In other words, this choice is made by the “experts.” There is, though, another group that we could have listened to on Sunday night. That group would be the people who actually spend money to go to the movies. . . . According to that group, Marvel’s the Avengers was the “best” picture in 2012. With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. And when we look at world-wide revenues, this film brought in more than $1.5 billion. . . . Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. Perhaps this is just because I am an econo
2 0.84976202 765 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-How the ignorant idiots win, explained. Maybe.
Introduction: According to a New York Times article , cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have a new theory about rational argument: humans didn’t develop it in order to learn about the world, we developed it in order to win arguments with other people. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Based on the NYT article, it seems that Mercier and Sperber are basically flipping around the traditional argument, which is that humans learned to reason about the world, albeit imperfectly, and learned to use language to convey that reasoning to others. These guys would suggest that it’s the other way around: we learned to argue with others, and this has gradually led to the ability to actually make (and recognize) sound arguments, but only indirectly. The article says “”At least in some cultural contexts, this results in a kind of arms race towards greater sophistication in the production and evaluation o
3 0.83961773 1105 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-08-Econ debate about prices at a fancy restaurant
Introduction: Felix Salmon writes : Economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson have a problem with Grant Achatz’s pricing strategy at Next, where tickets are sold at a fixed price and are then free to be resold at an enormous markup on the secondary market . . . “It’s democratic in theory, but not in practice,” said Wolfers . . . If a person can sell a ticket for $3,000, the true cost of going to the restaurant — what an economist would call the opportunity cost — is $3000, because that’s how much money the person is giving up for the meal. Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse concludes that Next should “consider selling tickets to the highest bidder and giving the extra money to charity” . . . What strikes me is how weird this discussion is. Why should this restaurant owner have some sort of moral obligation to maximize his income and then donate to charity? For one thing, if he really did make more money off the deal he might just keep it. But more to the point, this sort of maximiz
Introduction: Ever since I got this new sound system for my bike, I’ve been listening to a lot of podcasts. This American Life is really good. I know, I know, everybody knows that, but it’s true. The only segments I don’t like are the ones that are too “writerly,” when they read a short story aloud. They don’t work for me. Most of the time, though, the show is as great as everyone says it is. Anyway, the other day I listened to program #466: Blackjack . It started with some items on card counting. That stuff is always fun. Then they get to the longer story, which is all about a moderately rich housewife from Iowa who, over a roughly ten-year period, lost her life savings, something like a million dollars, at Harrah’s casinos. Did you know they had casinos in Iowa and Indiana? I didn’t. Anyway, the lady was a gambling addict. That part’s pretty clear. You don’t lose your life savings at a casino by accident. The scary part, though, was how the casino company craftily enabled her to
Introduction: I think I’m starting to resolve a puzzle that’s been bugging me for awhile. Pop economists (or, at least, pop micro-economists) are often making one of two arguments: 1. People are rational and respond to incentives. Behavior that looks irrational is actually completely rational once you think like an economist. 2. People are irrational and they need economists, with their open minds, to show them how to be rational and efficient. Argument 1 is associated with “why do they do that?” sorts of puzzles. Why do they charge so much for candy at the movie theater, why are airline ticket prices such a mess, why are people drug addicts, etc. The usual answer is that there’s some rational reason for what seems like silly or self-destructive behavior. Argument 2 is associated with “we can do better” claims such as why we should fire 80% of public-schools teachers or Moneyball-style stories about how some clever entrepreneur has made a zillion dollars by exploiting some inefficienc
7 0.82404292 525 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-19-Thiel update
8 0.821558 1804 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-15-How effective are football coaches?
10 0.8162207 60 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-30-What Auteur Theory and Freshwater Economics have in common
11 0.80536628 482 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-23-Capitalism as a form of voluntarism
13 0.80291659 1845 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-07-Is Felix Salmon wrong on free TV?
14 0.80167824 711 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-Steven Rhoads’s book, “The Economist’s View of the World”
15 0.7968083 719 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-19-Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer)
16 0.79206824 668 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-19-The free cup and the extra dollar: A speculation in philosophy
17 0.78812605 1758 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-11-Yes, the decision to try (or not) to have a child can be made rationally
18 0.78689688 1696 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-29-The latest in economics exceptionalism
19 0.78166139 17 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-05-Taking philosophical arguments literally
20 0.77548534 2010 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-06-Would today’s captains of industry be happier in a 1950s-style world?
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.025), (15, 0.066), (16, 0.069), (21, 0.037), (24, 0.097), (29, 0.011), (42, 0.021), (62, 0.015), (63, 0.025), (66, 0.015), (76, 0.215), (77, 0.016), (81, 0.015), (87, 0.018), (98, 0.016), (99, 0.219)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.92856121 337 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-12-Election symposium at Columbia Journalism School
Introduction: Here’s the announcement: ELECTIONS 2010 How sustainable is the current Republican coalition? Why has support for the Democratic Party taken a nosedive? Has there been a fundamental change in political conflict since Obama took office? How might policy (health care, TARP, the stimulus) influence election outcomes? Join J-School Prof. TOM EDSALL and a bevy of some of the quickest political minds around for an examination of the upcoming November elections: * BEN SMITH & MAGGIE HABERMAN of Politico * CHARLES BLOW of the New York Times * MELINDA HENNEBERGER of Politics Daily * SAM STEIN of the Huffington Post * J-School Prof. TODD GITLIN and * Columbia University political scientists ANDREW GELMAN & BOB ERIKSON. This lecture is sponsored in part by the Sevellon Brown Lecture Fund. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12 * 7 P.M. Journalism School Lecture Hall
2 0.8988204 1551 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-28-A convenience sample and selected treatments
Introduction: Charlie Saunders writes: A study has recently been published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which uses survival analysis to examine long-acting reversible contraception (e.g. intrauterine devices [IUDs]) vs. short-term commonly prescribed methods of contraception (e.g. oral contraceptive pills) on unintended pregnancies. The authors use a convenience sample of over 7,000 women. I am not well versed-enough in sampling theory to determine the appropriateness of this but it would seem that the use of a non-probability sampling would be a significant drawback. If you could give me your opinion on this, I would appreciate it. The NEJM is one of the top medical journals in the country. Could this type of sampling method coupled with this method of analysis be published in a journal like JASA? My reply: There are two concerns, first that it is a convenience sample and thus not representative of the population, and second that the treatments are chosen rather tha
Introduction: Sandeep Baliga writes : [In a recent study , Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner write:] For interstate highways in metropolitan areas we [Duranton and Turner] find that VKT (vehicle kilometers traveled) increases one for one with interstate highways, confirming the fundamental law of highway congestion.’ Provision of public transit also simply leads to the people taking public transport being replaced by drivers on the road. Therefore: These findings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat traffic congestion. This leaves congestion pricing as the main candidate tool to curb traffic congestion. To which I reply: Sure, if your goal is to curb traffic congestion . But what sort of goal is that? Thinking like a microeconomist, my policy goal is to increase people’s utility. Sure, traffic congestion is annoying, but there must be some advantages to driving on that crowded road or pe
same-blog 4 0.8908838 1850 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-10-The recursion of pop-econ
Introduction: Dave Berri posted the following at the Freakonomics blog: The “best” picture of 2012 was Argo. At least that’s the film that won the Oscar for best picture. According to the Oscars, the decision to give this award to Argo was made by the nearly 6,000 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. . . . In other words, this choice is made by the “experts.” There is, though, another group that we could have listened to on Sunday night. That group would be the people who actually spend money to go to the movies. . . . According to that group, Marvel’s the Avengers was the “best” picture in 2012. With domestic revenues in excess of $600 million, this filmed earned nearly $200 million more than any other picture. And when we look at world-wide revenues, this film brought in more than $1.5 billion. . . . Despite what seems like a clear endorsement by the customers of this industry, the Avengers was ignored by the Oscars. Perhaps this is just because I am an econo
5 0.88084757 300 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-28-A calibrated Cook gives Dems the edge in Nov, sez Sandy
Introduction: Sandy Gordon sends along this fun little paper forecasting the 2010 midterm election using expert predictions (the Cook and Rothenberg Political Reports). Gordon’s gimmick is that he uses past performance to calibrate the reports’ judgments based on “solid,” “likely,” “leaning,” and “toss-up” categories, and then he uses the calibrated versions of the current predictions to make his forecast. As I wrote a few weeks ago in response to Nate’s forecasts, I think the right way to go, if you really want to forecast the election outcome, is to use national information to predict the national swing and then do regional, state, and district-level adjustments using whatever local information is available. I don’t see the point of using only the expert forecasts and no other data. Still, Gordon is bringing new information (his calibrations) to the table, so I wanted to share it with you. Ultimately I like the throw-in-everything approach that Nate uses (although I think Nate’s descr
6 0.8769995 1835 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-02-7 ways to separate errors from statistics
7 0.85578394 283 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-Vote Buying: Evidence from a List Experiment in Lebanon
8 0.84886599 1351 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-29-A Ph.D. thesis is not really a marathon
10 0.82978141 1084 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-Tweeting the Hits?
11 0.82755125 32 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-14-Causal inference in economics
12 0.82496536 608 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-12-Single or multiple imputation?
13 0.82270229 51 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-26-If statistics is so significantly great, why don’t statisticians use statistics?
14 0.81695849 1600 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-$241,364.83 – $13,000 = $228,364.83
15 0.8153559 257 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-04-Question about standard range for social science correlations
16 0.81447327 2246 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-13-An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data
17 0.80869651 368 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Is instrumental variables analysis particularly susceptible to Type M errors?
18 0.80630362 922 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-Economists don’t think like accountants—but maybe they should
19 0.80587119 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
20 0.79701662 2013 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-08-What we need here is some peer review for statistical graphics