andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-2057 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Christopher Chabris reviewed the new book by Malcolm Gladwell: One thing “David and Goliath” shows is that Mr. Gladwell has not changed his own strategy, despite serious criticism of his prior work. What he presents are mostly just intriguing possibilities and musings about human behavior, but what his publisher sells them as, and what his readers may incorrectly take them for, are lawful, causal rules that explain how the world really works. Mr. Gladwell should acknowledge when he is speculating or working with thin evidentiary soup. Yet far from abandoning his hand or even standing pat, Mr. Gladwell has doubled down. This will surely bring more success to a Goliath of nonfiction writing, but not to his readers. Afterward he blogged some further thoughts about the popular popular science writer. Good stuff . Chabris has a thoughtful explanation of why the “Gladwell is just an entertainer” alibi doesn’t work for him (Chabris). Some of his discussion reminds me of my articl
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 What he presents are mostly just intriguing possibilities and musings about human behavior, but what his publisher sells them as, and what his readers may incorrectly take them for, are lawful, causal rules that explain how the world really works. [sent-3, score-0.17]
2 Gladwell should acknowledge when he is speculating or working with thin evidentiary soup. [sent-5, score-0.107]
3 Afterward he blogged some further thoughts about the popular popular science writer. [sent-9, score-0.207]
4 But the experiment is a 40-person study on Princeton students who solved three mathematical reasoning problems presented in either a normal typeface or a difficult-to-read typeface. [sent-16, score-0.353]
5 Counterintuitively, the group that read in a difficult typeface scored higher on the reasoning problems than the group that read in a normal typeface. [sent-17, score-0.226]
6 In my review, I criticized Gladwell for describing this experiment at length without also mentioning that a replication attempt with a much larger and more representative sample of subjects did not find an advantage for difficult typefaces. [sent-18, score-0.19]
7 However, I cannot find any successful direct replications—repetitions of the experiment that use the same methods and get the same results—and direct replication is the evidence that I believe is most relevant. [sent-20, score-0.247]
8 This would be even better, blog-style, with links for the study and the failed replication. [sent-21, score-0.064]
9 As a bonus, here’s a post on disgraced science writer Jonah Lehrer, where Chabris writes, “Jonah Lehrer was never a very good science writer. [sent-24, score-0.134]
10 He seemed not to fully understand the science he was trying to explain; his explanations were inaccurate, overblown, and often just plain wrong, usually in the direction of giving his readers counterintuitive thrills and challenging their settled beliefs. [sent-25, score-0.209]
11 ” Particularly resonant to me was Chabris’s linking of Lehrer’s ethical lapses with his scientific lapses: The fabrications and the scientific misunderstanding are actually closely related. [sent-26, score-0.442]
12 The fabrications tended to follow a pattern of perfecting the stories and anecdotes that Lehrer — like almost all successful science writers nowadays — used to illustrate his arguments. [sent-27, score-0.411]
13 Had he used only words Bob Dylan actually said, and only the true facts about Dylan’s 1960s songwriting travails, the story wouldn’t have been as smooth. [sent-28, score-0.061]
14 I think one of the clearest was Seth Mnookin’s analysis of Lehrer’s retelling of psychologist Leon Festinger’s famous original story of “cognitive dissonance,” based on Festinger’s experience of infiltrating a doomsday cult in 1954. [sent-33, score-0.215]
15 Of the moments after an expected civilization-destroying cataclysm failed to start, Festinger wrote, “Midnight had passed and nothing had happened … But there was little to see in the reactions of the people in that room. [sent-34, score-0.113]
16 People sat stock still, their faces seemingly frozen and expressionless. [sent-36, score-0.052]
17 ” Lehrer narrated the same event as follows: “When the clock read 12:01 and there were still no aliens, the cultists began to worry. [sent-37, score-0.068]
18 Each one of these little errors or fabrications makes the story work a little bit better, makes it match our expectations more closely, and thus gives it greater influence on our beliefs. [sent-43, score-0.342]
19 This seems closely related to the idea that Thomas Basbøll and I had , that plagiarism (or, more generally, obscuring of the provenance of data) is a statistical crime in that it reduces our ability to learn from reality. [sent-44, score-0.141]
20 Simplification is necessary for storytelling, but when you smooth away the parts of the story that don’t fit your template (whether you’re Levitt, Gladwell, Lehrer, or anyone else) you close off a possibility for learning. [sent-45, score-0.061]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('gladwell', 0.414), ('chabris', 0.4), ('lehrer', 0.393), ('fabrications', 0.183), ('festinger', 0.183), ('goliath', 0.166), ('dylan', 0.137), ('experiment', 0.127), ('typeface', 0.122), ('lapses', 0.111), ('aliens', 0.1), ('closely', 0.093), ('counterintuitive', 0.087), ('jonah', 0.083), ('popular', 0.07), ('began', 0.068), ('science', 0.067), ('explain', 0.067), ('levitt', 0.067), ('failed', 0.064), ('replication', 0.063), ('story', 0.061), ('successful', 0.057), ('musings', 0.055), ('deploys', 0.055), ('perfecting', 0.055), ('resonant', 0.055), ('overblown', 0.055), ('evidentiary', 0.055), ('thrills', 0.055), ('reasoning', 0.053), ('cliches', 0.052), ('cult', 0.052), ('frozen', 0.052), ('midnight', 0.052), ('doomsday', 0.052), ('speculating', 0.052), ('normal', 0.051), ('nonfiction', 0.05), ('repetitions', 0.05), ('cry', 0.05), ('clearest', 0.05), ('doubled', 0.05), ('dissonance', 0.05), ('stories', 0.049), ('little', 0.049), ('abandoning', 0.048), ('sells', 0.048), ('conceptually', 0.048), ('obscuring', 0.048)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
Introduction: Christopher Chabris reviewed the new book by Malcolm Gladwell: One thing “David and Goliath” shows is that Mr. Gladwell has not changed his own strategy, despite serious criticism of his prior work. What he presents are mostly just intriguing possibilities and musings about human behavior, but what his publisher sells them as, and what his readers may incorrectly take them for, are lawful, causal rules that explain how the world really works. Mr. Gladwell should acknowledge when he is speculating or working with thin evidentiary soup. Yet far from abandoning his hand or even standing pat, Mr. Gladwell has doubled down. This will surely bring more success to a Goliath of nonfiction writing, but not to his readers. Afterward he blogged some further thoughts about the popular popular science writer. Good stuff . Chabris has a thoughtful explanation of why the “Gladwell is just an entertainer” alibi doesn’t work for him (Chabris). Some of his discussion reminds me of my articl
2 0.54062456 2058 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-11-Gladwell and Chabris, David and Goliath, and science writing as stone soup
Introduction: The only thing is, I’m not sure who’s David here and who is Goliath. From the standpoint of book sales, Gladwell is Goliath for sure. On the other hand, Gladwell’s credibility has been weakened over the years by fights with bigshots such as Steven Pinker. Maybe the best analogy is a boxing match where Gladwell stands in the ring and fighter after fighter is sent in to bang him up. At some point the heavyweight gets a little bit tired. (Recently Gladwell had a New Yorker column defending dopers such as Lance Armstrong, so I suspect he’ll have Kaiser Fung coming after him again , once the current lucha with Chabris is over.) Chabris took his swing at Gladwell a few days ago, as I reported here . Yesterday was Gladwell’s turn . I have a lot of sympathy for the Blink-man here: he writes these bestsellers and puts himself out there, so he’s a target. If Gladwell’s books were generic business-bestseller pap of the be-yourself-and-be-tough variety, he wouldn’t get hassled. It
3 0.25324184 2021 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-Swiss Jonah Lehrer
Introduction: Psychology researcher Chris Chabris writes : Rolf Dobelli, a Swiss writer, published a book called The Art of Thinking Clearly earlier this year with HarperCollins in the U.S. The book’s original German edition was a #1 bestseller, and the book has sold over one million copies worldwide. In perusing Mr. Dobelli’s book, we noticed several familiar-sounding passages. On closer examination, we found five instances of unattributed material that is either reproduced verbatim or closely paraphrased from text and arguments in our book, The Invisible Gorilla (Crown, 2010). They are listed at the end of this note. Apparently he ripped off Nassim Taleb too . A million copies, huh? I guess crime really does pay! Maybe he could get an appointment at Harvard Law School or, if that falls through, a position as writer-in-residence at the statistics department of George Mason University [no link needed for that one -- ed.]. P.S. Chabris notes that there’s an odd coincidence regardin
4 0.18812403 1448 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-07-Scientific fraud, double standards and institutions protecting themselves
Introduction: Ole Rogeberg writes: After reading your recent post , I thought you might find this interesting – especially the scanned interview that is included at the bottom of the posting. It’s an old OMNI interview with Walter Stewart that was the first thing I read (at a young and impressionable age ;) about the prevalence of errors, fraud and cheating in science, the institutional barriers to tackling it, the often high personal costs to whistleblowers, the difficulty of accessing scientific data to repeat published analyses, and the surprisingly negative attitude towards criticism within scientific communities. Highly recommended entertaining reading – with some good examples of scientific investigations into implausible effects. The post itself contains the info I once dug up about what happened to him later – he seems like an interesting and very determined guy: when the NIH tried to stop him from investigating scientific errors and fraud he went on a hunger strike. No idea what’s h
Introduction: Dan Kahan writes on what seems to be the topic of the week : In reflecting on Lehrer , I [Kahan] have to wonder why the sanction is so much more severe — basically career “death penalty” subject to parole [I think he means "life imprisonment" --- ed.], I suppose, if he manages decades of “good behavior” — for this science journalist when scholars who stick plagiarized material in their “popular science” writing don’t even get slap on wrist — more like shrug of the shoulders. I do think the behavior is comparable; if anything, it’s probably “less wrong” to make up innocuous filler quotes (the Dylan one is, for sure), then to stick paragraphs of someone else’s writing into a book. But the cause is the same: laziness. (The plagarism I’m talking about is not the sort done by Wegman; its sort done by scholars who use factory production techniques to write popular press books — teams of research assistants who write memos, which the “author” then knits together & passes off as learne
7 0.17216949 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
8 0.1309935 562 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-06-Statistician cracks Toronto lottery
9 0.11897455 1446 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-06-“And will pardon Paul Claudel, Pardons him for writing well”
10 0.11286295 253 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-03-Gladwell vs Pinker
11 0.10024958 1176 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-19-Standardized writing styles and standardized graphing styles
12 0.097889163 1100 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-05-Freakonomics: Why ask “What went wrong?”
13 0.094735034 719 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-19-Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer)
14 0.083434194 1844 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-06-Against optimism about social science
15 0.078225583 1278 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-23-“Any old map will do” meets “God is in every leaf of every tree”
16 0.07477577 170 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-When is expertise relevant?
17 0.073973395 1634 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-21-Two reviews of Nate Silver’s new book, from Kaiser Fung and Cathy O’Neil
18 0.07379175 2313 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-30-Seth Roberts
20 0.073453002 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.164), (1, -0.053), (2, -0.043), (3, -0.041), (4, -0.026), (5, -0.021), (6, 0.027), (7, 0.006), (8, 0.017), (9, 0.022), (10, -0.04), (11, -0.006), (12, -0.011), (13, -0.012), (14, -0.013), (15, -0.018), (16, -0.021), (17, 0.055), (18, 0.048), (19, 0.005), (20, -0.045), (21, -0.014), (22, -0.006), (23, -0.017), (24, 0.023), (25, 0.013), (26, 0.063), (27, 0.028), (28, 0.001), (29, -0.009), (30, 0.005), (31, -0.017), (32, -0.014), (33, 0.04), (34, 0.017), (35, 0.022), (36, 0.013), (37, -0.099), (38, 0.027), (39, -0.014), (40, -0.012), (41, -0.015), (42, 0.029), (43, 0.005), (44, 0.039), (45, -0.005), (46, 0.005), (47, 0.001), (48, 0.032), (49, -0.025)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94641382 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
Introduction: Christopher Chabris reviewed the new book by Malcolm Gladwell: One thing “David and Goliath” shows is that Mr. Gladwell has not changed his own strategy, despite serious criticism of his prior work. What he presents are mostly just intriguing possibilities and musings about human behavior, but what his publisher sells them as, and what his readers may incorrectly take them for, are lawful, causal rules that explain how the world really works. Mr. Gladwell should acknowledge when he is speculating or working with thin evidentiary soup. Yet far from abandoning his hand or even standing pat, Mr. Gladwell has doubled down. This will surely bring more success to a Goliath of nonfiction writing, but not to his readers. Afterward he blogged some further thoughts about the popular popular science writer. Good stuff . Chabris has a thoughtful explanation of why the “Gladwell is just an entertainer” alibi doesn’t work for him (Chabris). Some of his discussion reminds me of my articl
2 0.78148836 2058 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-11-Gladwell and Chabris, David and Goliath, and science writing as stone soup
Introduction: The only thing is, I’m not sure who’s David here and who is Goliath. From the standpoint of book sales, Gladwell is Goliath for sure. On the other hand, Gladwell’s credibility has been weakened over the years by fights with bigshots such as Steven Pinker. Maybe the best analogy is a boxing match where Gladwell stands in the ring and fighter after fighter is sent in to bang him up. At some point the heavyweight gets a little bit tired. (Recently Gladwell had a New Yorker column defending dopers such as Lance Armstrong, so I suspect he’ll have Kaiser Fung coming after him again , once the current lucha with Chabris is over.) Chabris took his swing at Gladwell a few days ago, as I reported here . Yesterday was Gladwell’s turn . I have a lot of sympathy for the Blink-man here: he writes these bestsellers and puts himself out there, so he’s a target. If Gladwell’s books were generic business-bestseller pap of the be-yourself-and-be-tough variety, he wouldn’t get hassled. It
3 0.73483789 1448 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-07-Scientific fraud, double standards and institutions protecting themselves
Introduction: Ole Rogeberg writes: After reading your recent post , I thought you might find this interesting – especially the scanned interview that is included at the bottom of the posting. It’s an old OMNI interview with Walter Stewart that was the first thing I read (at a young and impressionable age ;) about the prevalence of errors, fraud and cheating in science, the institutional barriers to tackling it, the often high personal costs to whistleblowers, the difficulty of accessing scientific data to repeat published analyses, and the surprisingly negative attitude towards criticism within scientific communities. Highly recommended entertaining reading – with some good examples of scientific investigations into implausible effects. The post itself contains the info I once dug up about what happened to him later – he seems like an interesting and very determined guy: when the NIH tried to stop him from investigating scientific errors and fraud he went on a hunger strike. No idea what’s h
4 0.73081541 2234 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-05-Plagiarism, Arizona style
Introduction: Last month a history professor sent me a note regarding plagiarism at Arizona State University: Matthew Whitaker, who had received an expedited promotion to full professor and was made Director of a new Center for the Study of Race and Democracy by Provost Elizabeth Capaldi and President Michael Crow, was charged by most of the full professors in the History Faculty with having plagiarized throughout his corpus of work, copying from regular works of scholarship and from web sources. Indeed, in his response, which claimed that the petitioners were racist, Whitaker admitted to plagiarism in his work, defending himself in part by stating that he had not reviewed carefully the research and writing he had hired others to do. . . . What bothered my correspondent was that Whitaker remains an ASU Foundation Professor of History despite all the plaig. According to Whitaker’s webpage , he “is also a highly sought after speaker, having offered commentaries on NPR, PBS, . . . and other medi
5 0.72103167 1784 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-01-Wolfram on Mandelbrot
Introduction: The most perfect pairing of author and subject since Nicholson Baker and John Updike. Here’s Wolfram on the great researcher of fractals : In his way, Mandelbrot paid me some great compliments. When I was in my 20s, and he in his 60s, he would ask about my scientific work: “How can so many people take someone so young so seriously?” In 2002, my book “A New Kind of Science”—in which I argued that many phenomena across science are the complex results of relatively simple, program-like rules—appeared. Mandelbrot seemed to see it as a direct threat, once declaring that “Wolfram’s ‘science’ is not new except when it is clearly wrong; it deserves to be completely disregarded.” In private, though, several mutual friends told me, he fretted that in the long view of history it would overwhelm his work. In retrospect, I don’t think Mandelbrot had much to worry about on this account. The link from the above review came from Peter Woit, who also points to a review by Brian Hayes wit
6 0.71207285 197 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The last great essayist?
7 0.69912541 400 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-08-Poli sci plagiarism update, and a note about the benefits of not caring
9 0.6939159 2334 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-14-“The subtle funk of just a little poultry offal”
10 0.69027698 2006 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Evaluating evidence from published research
11 0.68598503 11 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-29-Auto-Gladwell, or Can fractals be used to predict human history?
12 0.67608964 1303 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-I’m skeptical about this skeptical article about left-handedness
13 0.67405343 1449 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-Gregor Mendel’s suspicious data
14 0.67292738 2189 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-28-History is too important to be left to the history professors
15 0.67271596 1278 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-23-“Any old map will do” meets “God is in every leaf of every tree”
16 0.66936195 1442 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-03-Double standard? Plagiarizing journos get slammed, plagiarizing profs just shrug it off
17 0.6676771 989 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-03-This post does not mention Wegman
18 0.66549402 1446 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-06-“And will pardon Paul Claudel, Pardons him for writing well”
19 0.65806365 1210 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-12-Plagiarists are in the habit of lying
20 0.65786976 1223 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-20-A kaleidoscope of responses to Dubner’s criticisms of our criticisms of Freaknomics
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.016), (12, 0.017), (15, 0.01), (16, 0.069), (21, 0.03), (24, 0.124), (28, 0.015), (29, 0.093), (47, 0.013), (52, 0.028), (63, 0.026), (74, 0.021), (81, 0.013), (86, 0.115), (95, 0.016), (99, 0.261)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96143568 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
Introduction: Christopher Chabris reviewed the new book by Malcolm Gladwell: One thing “David and Goliath” shows is that Mr. Gladwell has not changed his own strategy, despite serious criticism of his prior work. What he presents are mostly just intriguing possibilities and musings about human behavior, but what his publisher sells them as, and what his readers may incorrectly take them for, are lawful, causal rules that explain how the world really works. Mr. Gladwell should acknowledge when he is speculating or working with thin evidentiary soup. Yet far from abandoning his hand or even standing pat, Mr. Gladwell has doubled down. This will surely bring more success to a Goliath of nonfiction writing, but not to his readers. Afterward he blogged some further thoughts about the popular popular science writer. Good stuff . Chabris has a thoughtful explanation of why the “Gladwell is just an entertainer” alibi doesn’t work for him (Chabris). Some of his discussion reminds me of my articl
2 0.94213462 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
3 0.94012928 1940 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-16-A poll that throws away data???
Introduction: Mark Blumenthal writes: What do you think about the “random rejection” method used by PPP that was attacked at some length today by a Republican pollster. Our just published post on the debate includes all the details as I know them. The Storify of Martino’s tweets has some additional data tables linked to toward the end. Also, more specifically, setting aside Martino’s suggestion of manipulation (which is also quite possible with post-stratification weights), would the PPP method introduce more potential random error than weighting? From Blumenthal’s blog: B.J. Martino, a senior vice president at the Republican polling firm The Tarrance Group, went on an 30-minute Twitter rant on Tuesday questioning the unorthodox method used by PPP [Public Policy Polling] to select samples and weight data: “Looking at @ppppolls new VA SW. Wondering how many interviews they discarded to get down to 601 completes? Because @ppppolls discards a LOT of interviews. Of 64,811 conducted
4 0.93819618 1547 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-25-College football, voting, and the law of large numbers
Introduction: In an article provocatively entitled, “Will Ohio State’s football team decide who wins the White House?”, Tyler Cowen and Kevin Grier report : It is statistically possible that the outcome of a handful of college football games in the right battleground states could determine the race for the White House. Economists Andrew Healy, Neil Malhotra, and Cecilia Mo make this argument in a fascinating article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. They examined whether the outcomes of college football games on the eve of elections for presidents, senators, and governors affected the choices voters made. They found that a win by the local team, in the week before an election, raises the vote going to the incumbent by around 1.5 percentage points. When it comes to the 20 highest attendance teams—big athletic programs like the University of Michigan, Oklahoma, and Southern Cal—a victory on the eve of an election pushes the vote for the incumbent up by 3 percentage points. T
Introduction: I was given the opportunity to briefly comment on the paper , A Bayesian approach to complex clinical diagnoses: a case-study in child abuse, by Nicky Best, Deborah Ashby, Frank Dunstan, David Foreman, and Neil McIntosh, for the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Here is what I wrote: Best et al. are working on an important applied problem and I have no reason to doubt that their approach is a step forward beyond diagnostic criteria based on point estimation. An attempt at an accurate assessment of variation is important not just for statistical reasons but also because scientists have the duty to convey their uncertainty to the larger world. I am thinking, for example, of discredited claims such as that of the mathematician who claimed to predict divorces with 93% accuracy (Abraham, 2010). Regarding the paper at hand, I thought I would try an experiment in comment-writing. My usual practice is to read the graphs and then go back and clarify any questions through the t
6 0.93655944 1971 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-07-I doubt they cheated
7 0.9328925 1266 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-16-Another day, another plagiarist
9 0.93197942 1983 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-15-More on AIC, WAIC, etc
10 0.93192863 276 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Don’t look at just one poll number–unless you really know what you’re doing!
11 0.93181276 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
12 0.93178332 759 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-11-“2 level logit with 2 REs & large sample. computational nightmare – please help”
13 0.93157613 651 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-06-My talk at Northwestern University tomorrow (Thursday)
14 0.93135244 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
15 0.93122232 2118 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-30-???
16 0.93117851 2058 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-11-Gladwell and Chabris, David and Goliath, and science writing as stone soup
17 0.92936039 781 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-28-The holes in my philosophy of Bayesian data analysis
18 0.92900705 2260 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-22-Postdoc at Rennes on multilevel missing data imputation
19 0.92836922 305 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-29-Decision science vs. social psychology
20 0.92812806 1539 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-18-IRB nightmares