andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1873 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Aggressive, fizzing nonconformity .
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('aggressive', 1.0)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1873 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-28-Escalatingly uncomfortable
Introduction: Aggressive, fizzing nonconformity .
2 0.14714728 2205 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-10-More on US health care overkill
Introduction: Paul Alper writes: You recently posted my moving and widening the goalposts contention. In it, I mentioned “how diagnoses increase markedly while deaths are flatlined” indicating that we are being overdiagnosed and overtreated. Above are 5 frightening graphs which illustrate the phenomenon. Defenders of the system might (ludicrously) contend that it is precisely the aggressive medical care that is responsible for keeping the cancers under control. The prostate cancer graph is particularly interesting because it shows the peaking of the PSA-driven cause of treatment in the 1990s which then falls off as the evidence accumulates that the PSA was far from a perfect indicator. In contrast is the thyroid cancer which zooms skyward even as the death rate is absolutely (dead) flat. And of course here’s the famous cross-country comparison that some find “ schlocky ” but which I (and many others) find compelling :
3 0.12753037 2281 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-04-The Notorious N.H.S.T. presents: Mo P-values Mo Problems
Introduction: A recent discussion between commenters Question and Fernando captured one of the recurrent themes here from the past year. Question: The problem is simple, the researchers are disproving always false null hypotheses and taking this disproof as near proof that their theory is correct. Fernando: Whereas it is probably true that researchers misuse NHT, the problem with tabloid science is broader and deeper. It is systemic. Question: I do not see how anything can be deeper than replacing careful description, prediction, falsification, and independent replication with dynamite plots, p-values, affirming the consequent, and peer review. From my own experience I am confident in saying that confusion caused by NHST is at the root of this problem. Fernando: Incentives? Impact factors? Publish or die? “Interesting” and “new” above quality and reliability, or actually answering a research question, and a silly and unbecoming obsession with being quoted in NYT, etc. . . . Giv
4 0.093177229 111 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-26-Tough love as a style of writing
Introduction: Helen DeWitt links to an interview with Seth Godin, who makes some commonplace but useful observations on jobs and careers. It’s fine, but whenever I read this sort of thing, I get annoyed by the super-aggressive writing style. These internet guys–Seth Godin, Clay Shirky, Philip Greenspun, Jeff Jarvis, and so on–are always getting in your face, telling you how everything you thought was true was wrong. Some of the things these guys say are just silly (for example, Godin’s implication that Bob Dylan is more of a success than the Monkees because Dylan sells more tickets), other times they have interesting insights, but reading any of them for awhile just sets me on edge. I can’t take being shouted at, and I get a little tired of hearing over and over again that various people, industries, etc., are dinosaurs. Where does this aggressive style come from? My guess is that it’s coming from the vast supply of “business books” out there. These are books that are supposed to grab yo
5 0.072134018 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
Introduction: In my comments on academic cheating , I briefly discussed the question of how some of these papers could’ve been published in the first place, given that they tend to be of low quality. (It’s rare that people plagiarize the good stuff, and, when they do—for example when a senior scholar takes credit for a junior researcher’s contributions without giving proper credit—there’s not always a paper trail, and there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the relative contributions of the participants.) Anyway, to get back to the cases at hand: how did these rulebreakers get published in the first place? The question here is not how did they get away with cheating but how is it that top journals were publishing mediocre research? In the case of the profs who falsified data (Diederik Stapel) or did not follow scientific protocol (Mark Hauser), the answer is clear: By cheating, they were able to get the sort of too-good-to-be-true results which, if they were true, would be
6 0.07026758 1525 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-08-Ethical standards in different data communities
7 0.060504109 1901 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-16-Evilicious: Why We Evolved a Taste for Being Bad
8 0.053293247 2254 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-18-Those wacky anti-Bayesians used to be intimidating, but now they’re just pathetic
10 0.044686895 205 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-13-Arnold Zellner
11 0.037996836 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
12 0.035404325 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
13 0.031142864 757 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-10-Controversy over the Christakis-Fowler findings on the contagion of obesity
14 0.028695725 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
16 0.016347392 1743 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-28-Different modes of discourse
18 0.0 2 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-23-Modeling heterogenous treatment effects
19 0.0 3 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-26-Bayes in the news…in a somewhat frustrating way
20 0.0 4 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-26-Prolefeed
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.003), (1, -0.002), (2, -0.001), (3, -0.001), (4, -0.009), (5, -0.005), (6, -0.0), (7, -0.004), (8, 0.006), (9, 0.001), (10, 0.0), (11, 0.003), (12, -0.002), (13, -0.002), (14, 0.002), (15, 0.003), (16, -0.008), (17, -0.005), (18, -0.005), (19, -0.001), (20, 0.001), (21, 0.001), (22, -0.003), (23, 0.012), (24, -0.002), (25, 0.009), (26, -0.011), (27, -0.002), (28, -0.003), (29, 0.008), (30, -0.003), (31, 0.021), (32, 0.005), (33, -0.012), (34, -0.005), (35, 0.008), (36, -0.002), (37, -0.005), (38, 0.015), (39, 0.003), (40, -0.006), (41, -0.009), (42, 0.007), (43, 0.004), (44, 0.009), (45, 0.008), (46, 0.014), (47, -0.008), (48, 0.004), (49, 0.002)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1873 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-28-Escalatingly uncomfortable
Introduction: Aggressive, fizzing nonconformity .
2 0.51356351 649 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-05-Internal and external forecasting
Introduction: Some thoughts on the implausibility of Paul Ryan’s 2.8% unemployment forecast. Some general issues arise. P.S. Yes, Democrats also have been known to promote optimistic forecasts!
3 0.4070451 2205 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-10-More on US health care overkill
Introduction: Paul Alper writes: You recently posted my moving and widening the goalposts contention. In it, I mentioned “how diagnoses increase markedly while deaths are flatlined” indicating that we are being overdiagnosed and overtreated. Above are 5 frightening graphs which illustrate the phenomenon. Defenders of the system might (ludicrously) contend that it is precisely the aggressive medical care that is responsible for keeping the cancers under control. The prostate cancer graph is particularly interesting because it shows the peaking of the PSA-driven cause of treatment in the 1990s which then falls off as the evidence accumulates that the PSA was far from a perfect indicator. In contrast is the thyroid cancer which zooms skyward even as the death rate is absolutely (dead) flat. And of course here’s the famous cross-country comparison that some find “ schlocky ” but which I (and many others) find compelling :
4 0.37285507 124 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-02-Note to the quals
Introduction: See here for latest rant.
5 0.37015596 408 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Incumbency advantage in 2010
Introduction: See here for the full story.
6 0.35497299 90 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-16-Oil spill and corn production
8 0.34983519 84 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-Is it 1930?
9 0.34613448 539 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-26-Lies, Damn Lies…that’s pretty much it.
10 0.34140673 1785 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-02-So much artistic talent
11 0.33693922 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum
12 0.33241028 1043 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-Krugman disses Hayek as “being almost entirely about politics rather than economics”
13 0.33193308 1534 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-15-The strange reappearance of Matthew Klam
14 0.32573169 1389 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-23-Larry Wasserman’s statistics blog
15 0.32170025 1512 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-A Non-random Walk Down Campaign Street
16 0.31999946 683 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-28-Asymmetry in Political Bias
17 0.31997168 741 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-02-At least he didn’t prove a false theorem
18 0.3174893 747 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-06-Research Directions for Machine Learning and Algorithms
19 0.31457412 2024 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-15-Swiss Jonah Lehrer update
20 0.31189829 1314 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-12-More on Uncle Woody
topicId topicWeight
[(45, 0.505)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1873 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-28-Escalatingly uncomfortable
Introduction: Aggressive, fizzing nonconformity .
2 0.68343121 1407 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-06-Statistical inference and the secret ballot
Introduction: Ring Lardner, Jr.: [In 1936] I was already settled in Southern California, and it may have been that first exercise of the franchise that triggered the FBI surveillance of me that would last for decades. I had assumed, of course, that I was enjoying the vaunted American privilege of the secret ballot. On a wall outside my polling place on Wilshire Boulevard, however, was a compilation of the district’s registered voters: Democrats, a long list of names; Republicans, a somewhat lesser number; and “Declines to State,” one, “Ring W. Lardner, Jr.” The day after the election, alongside those lists were published the results: Roosevelt, so many; Landon, so many; Browder, one.
3 0.5209505 999 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-09-I was at a meeting a couple months ago . . .
Introduction: . . . and I decided to amuse myself by writing down all the management-speak words I heard: “grappling” “early prototypes” “technology platform” “building block” “machine learning” “your team” “workspace” “tagging” “data exhaust” “monitoring a particular population” “collective intelligence” “communities of practice” “hackathon” “human resources . . . technologies” Any one or two or three of these phrases might be fine, but put them all together and what you have is a festival of jargon. A hackathon, indeed.
4 0.47398904 543 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-28-NYT shills for personal DNA tests
Introduction: Kaiser nails it . The offending article , by John Tierney, somehow ended up in the Science section rather than the Opinion section. As an opinion piece (or, for that matter, a blog), Tierney’s article would be nothing special. But I agree with Kaiser that it doesn’t work as a newspaper article. As Kaiser notes, this story involves a bunch of statistical and empirical claims that are not well resolved by P.R. and rhetoric.
5 0.3469575 206 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-13-Indiemapper makes thematic mapping easy
Introduction: Arthur Breitman writes: I had to forward this to you when I read about it… My reply: Interesting; thanks. Things like this make me feel so computer-incompetent! The younger generation is passing me by…
6 0.33583751 310 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-The winner’s curse
7 0.33380908 1325 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-17-More on the difficulty of “preaching what you practice”
8 0.32129797 791 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Censoring on one end, “outliers” on the other, what can we do with the middle?
9 0.31748697 1031 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-27-Richard Stallman and John McCarthy
10 0.28290758 192 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-08-Turning pages into data
11 0.28230757 1504 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-20-Could someone please lock this guy and Niall Ferguson in a room together?
12 0.27914217 69 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-04-A Wikipedia whitewash
13 0.27338135 673 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-Upper-income people still don’t realize they’re upper-income
14 0.27085155 573 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-14-Hipmunk < Expedia, again
15 0.26640368 1015 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-17-Good examples of lurking variables?
16 0.25445694 2189 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-28-History is too important to be left to the history professors
17 0.25108126 362 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-A redrawing of the Red-Blue map in November 2010?
18 0.24189346 735 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-28-New app for learning intro statistics
19 0.23615623 1089 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-Path sampling for models of varying dimension
20 0.23418994 2225 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-26-A good comment on one of my papers