andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1988 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Follow the Amazon link and check to see if it’s still on sale . P.S. I don’t make any money through this link. We do get some royalties from the book, but only a very small amount. I’m pushing the Amazon link right now because (a) I think the book is great, and I want as many people as possible to have it, and (b) 40% off is a pretty good deal and I don’t know how long this will last. P.P.S. Just so this post has some statistical content, here’s one of my favorite papers , Bayesian model-building by pure thought: some principles and examples. It’s from 1996, and here’s the abstract:
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Follow the Amazon link and check to see if it’s still on sale . [sent-1, score-0.818]
2 We do get some royalties from the book, but only a very small amount. [sent-5, score-0.477]
3 I’m pushing the Amazon link right now because (a) I think the book is great, and I want as many people as possible to have it, and (b) 40% off is a pretty good deal and I don’t know how long this will last. [sent-6, score-1.523]
4 Just so this post has some statistical content, here’s one of my favorite papers , Bayesian model-building by pure thought: some principles and examples. [sent-10, score-0.875]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('amazon', 0.516), ('royalties', 0.321), ('sale', 0.321), ('pushing', 0.233), ('link', 0.228), ('pure', 0.2), ('book', 0.186), ('principles', 0.181), ('content', 0.18), ('favorite', 0.178), ('abstract', 0.17), ('deal', 0.151), ('money', 0.141), ('check', 0.141), ('follow', 0.14), ('papers', 0.121), ('possible', 0.109), ('long', 0.107), ('small', 0.106), ('great', 0.101), ('bayesian', 0.092), ('post', 0.092), ('thought', 0.088), ('pretty', 0.087), ('still', 0.081), ('right', 0.08), ('want', 0.073), ('statistical', 0.068), ('many', 0.065), ('good', 0.059), ('make', 0.058), ('know', 0.057), ('get', 0.05), ('people', 0.049), ('see', 0.047), ('think', 0.039), ('one', 0.035)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1988 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-19-BDA3 still (I hope) at 40% off! (and a link to one of my favorite papers)
Introduction: Follow the Amazon link and check to see if it’s still on sale . P.S. I don’t make any money through this link. We do get some royalties from the book, but only a very small amount. I’m pushing the Amazon link right now because (a) I think the book is great, and I want as many people as possible to have it, and (b) 40% off is a pretty good deal and I don’t know how long this will last. P.P.S. Just so this post has some statistical content, here’s one of my favorite papers , Bayesian model-building by pure thought: some principles and examples. It’s from 1996, and here’s the abstract:
2 0.23157409 1984 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-16-BDA at 40% off!
Introduction: Our publisher informs me of the exciting news that Amazon is now selling the 3rd edition of our book at 40% off! Enjoy.
3 0.18840894 1255 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Amtrak sucks
Introduction: Couldn’t they at least let me buy my tickets from Amazon so I wouldn’t have to re-enter the credit card information each time? Yeah, yeah, I know it’s no big deal. It just seems so silly.
4 0.17259027 1490 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-09-I’m still wondering . . .
Introduction: Why can’t I buy train and plane tickets through Amazon? That would be so much more convenient than the current system where I have to keep entering information into the damn forms over and over again.
5 0.13699836 1993 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-Improvements to Kindle Version of BDA3
Introduction: I let Andrew know about the comments about the defective Kindle version of BDA2 and he wrote to his editor at Chapman and Hall, Rob Calver, who wrote back with this info: I can guarantee that the Kindle version of the third edition will be a substantial improvement. We publish all of our mathematics and statistics books through Kindle now as Print Replica. This means that we send the printer pdf to Amazon and they convert into their Print Replica format, which is essentially just a pdf viewer. We have not experienced very many issues at all with this setup. Unfortunately, there was a period before Amazon launched Print Replica when they converted math/stat books into their Kindle format, and converted them very badly in some cases. Equations were held as images, making them very difficult to read. It appears this was the case with Andrew’s second edition, judging by some of the comments. The third edition [of BDA] will be available through Kindle with a short delay (for Amazo
6 0.13493712 1021 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-21-Don’t judge a book by its title
7 0.13393572 1304 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-Picking on Stephen Wolfram
8 0.12962517 1641 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-27-The Möbius strip, or, marketing that is impervious to criticism
9 0.11332119 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
10 0.11297643 1483 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-04-“Bestselling Author Caught Posting Positive Reviews of His Own Work on Amazon”
11 0.10185122 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
12 0.094317973 909 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-7 steps to successful infographics
13 0.0897194 8 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-28-Advice to help the rich get richer
14 0.089574523 1721 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-13-A must-read paper on statistical analysis of experimental data
15 0.088874534 1642 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-28-New book by Stef van Buuren on missing-data imputation looks really good!
17 0.080787607 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
18 0.079604171 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
19 0.07916569 1948 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-21-Bayes related
20 0.077203892 1695 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-28-Economists argue about Bayes
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.137), (1, -0.03), (2, -0.078), (3, 0.062), (4, -0.009), (5, 0.0), (6, 0.028), (7, 0.008), (8, 0.07), (9, -0.022), (10, 0.049), (11, -0.057), (12, 0.062), (13, 0.028), (14, 0.084), (15, 0.012), (16, 0.004), (17, 0.02), (18, 0.02), (19, -0.035), (20, 0.021), (21, 0.011), (22, 0.043), (23, 0.002), (24, -0.013), (25, 0.027), (26, 0.03), (27, 0.018), (28, 0.014), (29, -0.014), (30, -0.046), (31, -0.014), (32, 0.045), (33, -0.03), (34, 0.021), (35, 0.06), (36, 0.008), (37, -0.037), (38, -0.0), (39, 0.05), (40, 0.042), (41, -0.013), (42, 0.006), (43, 0.022), (44, 0.041), (45, 0.058), (46, 0.007), (47, 0.017), (48, -0.036), (49, 0.05)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97771883 1988 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-19-BDA3 still (I hope) at 40% off! (and a link to one of my favorite papers)
Introduction: Follow the Amazon link and check to see if it’s still on sale . P.S. I don’t make any money through this link. We do get some royalties from the book, but only a very small amount. I’m pushing the Amazon link right now because (a) I think the book is great, and I want as many people as possible to have it, and (b) 40% off is a pretty good deal and I don’t know how long this will last. P.P.S. Just so this post has some statistical content, here’s one of my favorite papers , Bayesian model-building by pure thought: some principles and examples. It’s from 1996, and here’s the abstract:
2 0.74547327 1436 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-A book on presenting numbers from spreadsheets
Introduction: I sometimes get books in the mail that seem right in my wheelhouse, but actually I have nothing useful to say because I’m not part of the target audience. An example: the book Painting With Numbers by Randall Bolton on “presenting financials and other numbers so people will understand you.” The author seems well-connected; the book has blurbs from a CEO, a COO, a bank vice-chairman, a former White House chief of staff, and Congressman Tom Campbell. So I assume the author knows something about business communication. But I have no way of evaluating the book. Any given page seems to contain useful information—for example, I just opened to page 73, which is all about not wasting your audience’s time, a principle which I am often emphasizing. Now I flip to page 120, which has “Long-Term Payoff Tip #8: Document Your Work!” Good point. My next flip takes us to page 175, which covers the value of getting audience feedback. Given that all these randomly-selected pages have good ad
3 0.73994923 2168 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-12-Things that I like that almost nobody else is interested in
Introduction: This post by Jordan Ellenberg (“Stoner represents a certain strain in the mid-century American novel that I really like, and which I don’t think exists in contemporary fiction. Anguish, verbal restraint, weirdness”) reminds me that what I really like is mid-to-late-twentieth-century literary criticism . I read a great book from the 50s, I think it was, by Anthony West (son of Rebecca West and H. G. Wells), who reviewed books for the New Yorker. It was great, and it made me wish that other collections of his reviews had been published (they hadn’t). I’d also love to read collections of Alfred Kazin ‘s reviews (there are some collections, but he published many many others that have never been reprinted) and others of that vintage. I’m pretty sure these hypothetical books wouldn’t sell many copies, though. (I feel lucky, though, that at one point a publisher released a pretty fat collection of Anthony Burgess ‘s book reviews.) It’s actually scary to think that many many more peopl
4 0.73599797 806 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-6 links
Introduction: The Browser asked me to recommend 6 articles for their readers. Here’s what I came up with. I really wanted to link to this one but it wouldn’t mean much to people who don’t know New York. I also recommended this (if you’ll forgive my reference to bowling), but I think it was too much of a primary source for their taste.
5 0.72928393 986 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-01-MacKay update: where 12 comes from
Introduction: In reply to my question , David MacKay writes: You said that can imagine rounding up 9 to 10 – which would be elegant if we worked in base 10. But in the UK we haven’t switched to base 10 yet, we still work in dozens and grosses. (One gross = 12^2 = 144.) So I was taught (by John Skilling, probably) “a dozen samples are plenty”. Probably in an earlier draft of the book in 2001 I said “a dozen”, rather than “12″. Then some feedbacker may have written and said “I don’t know what a dozen is”; so then I sacrificed elegant language and replaced “dozen” by “12″, which leads to your mystification. PS – please send the winner of your competition a free copy of my other book ( sewtha ) too, from me. PPS I see that Mikkel Schmidt [in your comments] has diligently found the correct answer, which I guessed above. I suggest you award the prizes to him. OK, we’re just giving away books here! P.S. See here for my review of MacKay’s book on sustainable energy.
6 0.72908789 258 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-05-A review of a review of a review of a decade
7 0.72736311 1179 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-21-“Readability” as freedom from the actual sensation of reading
8 0.72056693 2021 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-Swiss Jonah Lehrer
9 0.71825993 1641 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-27-The Möbius strip, or, marketing that is impervious to criticism
10 0.71780777 621 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-20-Maybe a great idea in theory, didn’t work so well in practice
11 0.71406949 1827 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-27-Continued fractions!!
12 0.71399236 1199 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-05-Any available cookbooks on Bayesian designs?
13 0.70601612 102 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-21-Why modern art is all in the mind
14 0.70122927 46 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-21-Careers, one-hit wonders, and an offer of a free book
15 0.69133264 115 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-28-Whassup with those crappy thrillers?
16 0.69116777 1542 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-20-A statistical model for underdispersion
17 0.69067484 285 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-18-Fiction is not for tirades? Tell that to Saul Bellow!
18 0.68647325 1642 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-28-New book by Stef van Buuren on missing-data imputation looks really good!
19 0.68137437 8 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-28-Advice to help the rich get richer
20 0.68098491 886 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-02-The new Helen DeWitt novel
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.071), (19, 0.109), (24, 0.239), (27, 0.088), (40, 0.041), (99, 0.293)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95323372 1988 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-19-BDA3 still (I hope) at 40% off! (and a link to one of my favorite papers)
Introduction: Follow the Amazon link and check to see if it’s still on sale . P.S. I don’t make any money through this link. We do get some royalties from the book, but only a very small amount. I’m pushing the Amazon link right now because (a) I think the book is great, and I want as many people as possible to have it, and (b) 40% off is a pretty good deal and I don’t know how long this will last. P.P.S. Just so this post has some statistical content, here’s one of my favorite papers , Bayesian model-building by pure thought: some principles and examples. It’s from 1996, and here’s the abstract:
Introduction: Please answer the above question before reading on . . . I’m curious after reading Leif Nelson’s report that, based on research with Minah Jung, approximately 42% of the people they surveyed said they bought laundry detergent on their most recent trip to the store. I’m stunned that the number is so high. 42%??? That’s almost half the time. If we bought laundry detergent half the time we went to the store, our apartment would be stacked so full with the stuff, we wouldn’t be able to enter the door. I think we buy laundry detergent . . . ummm, how often? There are 40 of those little laundry packets in the box, we do laundry once a day, sometimes twice, let’s say 10 times a week, so this means we buy detergent about once every 4 weeks. We go to the store, hmmm, about once a day, let’s say 5 times a week to put our guess on the conservative side. So, 20 trips to the store for each purchase of detergent, that’s 5% of the time. Compared to us, lots of people must (a) go to
3 0.93433243 1869 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-24-In which I side with Neyman over Fisher
Introduction: As a data analyst and a scientist, Fisher > Neyman, no question. But as a theorist, Fisher came up with ideas that worked just fine in his applications but can fall apart when people try to apply them too generally. Here’s an example that recently came up. Deborah Mayo pointed me to a comment by Stephen Senn on the so-called Fisher and Neyman null hypotheses. In an experiment with n participants (or, as we used to say, subjects or experimental units), the Fisher null hypothesis is that the treatment effect is exactly 0 for every one of the n units, while the Neyman null hypothesis is that the individual treatment effects can be negative or positive but have an average of zero. Senn explains why Neyman’s hypothesis in general makes no sense—the short story is that Fisher’s hypothesis seems relevant in some problems (sometimes we really are studying effects that are zero or close enough for all practical purposes), whereas Neyman’s hypothesis just seems weird (it’s implausible
4 0.93328506 804 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-15-Static sensitivity analysis
Introduction: This is one of my favorite ideas. I used it in an application but have never formally studied it or written it up as a general method. Sensitivity analysis is when you check how inferences change when you vary fit several different models or when you vary inputs within a model. Sensitivity analysis is often recommended but is typically difficult to do, what with the hassle of carrying around all these different estimates. In Bayesian inference, sensitivity analysis is associated with varying the prior distribution, which irritates me: why not consider sensitivity to the likelihood, as that’s typically just as arbitrary as the prior while having a much larger effect on the inferences. So we came up with static sensitivity analysis , which is a way to assess sensitivity to assumptions while fitting only one model. The idea is that Bayesian posterior simulation gives you a range of parameter values, and from these you can learn about sensitivity directly. The published exampl
5 0.93166852 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
6 0.93103051 1155 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-05-What is a prior distribution?
9 0.9289543 2109 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-21-Hidden dangers of noninformative priors
10 0.92703307 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
11 0.92689812 1644 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-30-Fixed effects, followed by Bayes shrinkage?
12 0.92631966 2319 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-05-Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?
13 0.92587477 1238 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-31-Dispute about ethics of data sharing
15 0.92492449 468 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-15-Weakly informative priors and imprecise probabilities
16 0.92478895 197 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The last great essayist?
17 0.92453849 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
18 0.92452729 1792 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-07-X on JLP
19 0.92430675 1941 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-16-Priors
20 0.92429304 1208 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-11-Gelman on Hennig on Gelman on Bayes