andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2329 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Tyler Cowen quotes Robin Hanson: If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. Like say the missing Malaysia Airlines plane. But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. . . . One advantage of having this blog on a lag of a month or two is that I can post things, knowing that when my discussion finally appears, it will no longer be topical. Indeed, this post is an example.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Tyler Cowen quotes Robin Hanson: If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. [sent-1, score-1.371]
2 But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. [sent-3, score-1.521]
3 One advantage of having this blog on a lag of a month or two is that I can post things, knowing that when my discussion finally appears, it will no longer be topical. [sent-7, score-1.297]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('socialize', 0.282), ('airlines', 0.269), ('neglected', 0.252), ('hanson', 0.246), ('lag', 0.235), ('robin', 0.227), ('talking', 0.22), ('insight', 0.178), ('gain', 0.172), ('spread', 0.171), ('quotes', 0.165), ('relatively', 0.16), ('knowing', 0.16), ('cowen', 0.156), ('purpose', 0.154), ('post', 0.154), ('tyler', 0.152), ('advantage', 0.149), ('month', 0.144), ('longer', 0.14), ('ll', 0.136), ('things', 0.133), ('appears', 0.128), ('missing', 0.126), ('want', 0.123), ('everyone', 0.121), ('finally', 0.12), ('main', 0.116), ('matter', 0.112), ('else', 0.109), ('whatever', 0.107), ('talk', 0.099), ('indeed', 0.097), ('instead', 0.096), ('useful', 0.095), ('reason', 0.091), ('understand', 0.088), ('look', 0.077), ('discussion', 0.073), ('blog', 0.066), ('say', 0.057), ('two', 0.056), ('example', 0.05), ('like', 0.032), ('one', 0.03)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
Introduction: Tyler Cowen quotes Robin Hanson: If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. Like say the missing Malaysia Airlines plane. But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. . . . One advantage of having this blog on a lag of a month or two is that I can post things, knowing that when my discussion finally appears, it will no longer be topical. Indeed, this post is an example.
2 0.20170319 1394 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-99!
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
3 0.15348551 1411 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-10-Defining ourselves arbitrarily
Introduction: Robin Hanson writes that he does’t use slang: I [Hanson] am not into slang. I want to talk to the widest possible audience, and to focus on timeless issues and insights, as opposed to the latest fashionable topics. I can see why people want to signal loyalty to their groups, especially in the military, but I have little confidence that this is good for the world as a whole. I don’t know anything about the military (I don’t think this really counts) so I can’t comment on that part, and I don’t see the opposition between slang and “timeless issues and insights, as opposed to the latest fashionable topics” (after all, Mark Twain used slang and he had some timeless insights), but I’d like to pick up on a slightly different angle here, which is the set of quasi-arbitrary choices we make in order to define ourselves. Robin Hanson happens not to use much slang and he uses this trait to define himself, not quite to stand out in the crowd but to put himself on one end of a scale. I
4 0.12907232 1994 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-“The comment section is open, but I’m not going to read them”
Introduction: That’s Tyler Cowen’s policy . I read almost all the comments here. I’m glad I read them, I think. Over the years, I’ve learned a lot of interesting things from the comments. Sometimes, though, I wish I hadn’t bothered. Cowen gets about 10 times as many comments as I do, so I think in his case it makes sense to just ignore them. If he read (or, even worse, responded to) them, he’d have no time for anything else.
5 0.11243706 1745 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-02-Classification error
Introduction: 15-2040 != 19-3010 (and, for that matter, 25-1022 != 25-1063).
6 0.10465855 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
7 0.10072989 1597 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-29-What is expected of a consultant
8 0.0996553 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
9 0.096624359 429 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-24-“But you and I don’t learn in isolation either”
10 0.096624359 887 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-02-“It’s like marveling over a plastic flower when there’s a huge garden blooming outside”
11 0.083796188 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
13 0.082403883 1007 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-At last, treated with the disrespect that I deserve
14 0.080093786 2064 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-16-Test run for G+ hangout for my Bayesian Data Analysis class
15 0.079849184 745 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-04-High-level intellectual discussions in the Columbia statistics department
17 0.075809106 1658 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-07-Free advice from an academic writing coach!
18 0.074543737 731 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-26-Lottery probability update
19 0.074529998 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
20 0.073758662 528 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-21-Elevator shame is a two-way street
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.115), (1, -0.052), (2, -0.026), (3, 0.037), (4, 0.012), (5, -0.013), (6, 0.046), (7, -0.008), (8, 0.041), (9, -0.036), (10, -0.007), (11, 0.047), (12, 0.05), (13, 0.025), (14, -0.007), (15, 0.014), (16, -0.03), (17, -0.013), (18, -0.014), (19, 0.05), (20, 0.014), (21, -0.051), (22, -0.002), (23, 0.017), (24, -0.023), (25, 0.053), (26, -0.029), (27, 0.003), (28, 0.019), (29, 0.014), (30, 0.024), (31, -0.038), (32, 0.005), (33, -0.015), (34, 0.079), (35, 0.008), (36, 0.023), (37, 0.019), (38, -0.005), (39, -0.016), (40, -0.015), (41, -0.043), (42, 0.006), (43, -0.033), (44, -0.018), (45, 0.022), (46, -0.034), (47, 0.002), (48, -0.046), (49, 0.032)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9865346 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
Introduction: Tyler Cowen quotes Robin Hanson: If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. Like say the missing Malaysia Airlines plane. But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. . . . One advantage of having this blog on a lag of a month or two is that I can post things, knowing that when my discussion finally appears, it will no longer be topical. Indeed, this post is an example.
2 0.81616735 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
Introduction: On a day with four blog posts (and followed by a day with two more), econblogger Mark Thoma wrote : Every once in awhile I [Thoma] kind of need a bit of a break . . . I ran out of energy a few weeks ago . . . I’ll do my best until then, daily links at least somehow and short “echo” posts as usual, but I doubt I’ll have time to say much myself . . . [There's a reason I haven't missed a day posting to the blog in over eight years. When I first started, I was afraid that if I missed a day new readers would bail out . . . I realize a missed day won't kill the blog at this point, but it's still important to me to keep posting every day.] What I do is post once a day; when I write new posts, I schedule them for the future. I currently have approx 2-month lag. Sometimes I post 2 or 3 times in one day, if I have something topical or just something I feel like posting on. Overall, though, I find a benefit to the lag. Posts that are less topical (not tied to the news or to a current o
3 0.81602067 1676 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-16-Detecting cheating in chess
Introduction: Three different people have pointed me to this post by Ken Regan on statistical evaluation of claims of cheating in chess. So I figured I have to satisfy demand and post something on this. But I have nothing to say. All these topics interest me, but I somehow had difficulty reading through the entire post. I scanned through but what I really wanted to see was some data. Show me a scatterplot, then I’ll get interested. P.S. This is meant as no disparagement of Regan or his blog. I just couldn’t quite get into this particular example.
4 0.80200505 1658 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-07-Free advice from an academic writing coach!
Introduction: Basbøll writes : I [Basbøll] have got to come up with forty things to say [in the next few months]. . . . What would you like me to write about? I’ll of course be writing quite a bit about what I’m now calling “article design”, i.e., how to map out the roughly forty paragraphs that a journal article is composed of. And I’ll also be talking about how to plan the writing process that is to produce those paragraphs. The basic principle is still to write at least one paragraph a day in 27 minutes. (You can adapt this is various ways to your own taste; some like 18-minute or even 13-minute paragraphs.) But I’d like to talk about questions of style, too, and even a little bit about epistemology. “Knowledge—academic knowledge, that is—is the ability to compose a coherent prose paragraph about something in 27 minutes,” I always say. I’d like to reflect a little more about what this conception of knowledge really means. This means I’ll have to walk back my recent dismissal of epistemol
5 0.79959142 1408 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-07-Not much difference between communicating to self and communicating to others
Introduction: Thomas Basbøll writes : [Advertising executive] Russell Davies wrote a blog post called “The Tyranny of the Big Idea”. His five-point procedure begins: Start doing stuff. Start executing things which seem right. Do it quickly and do it often. Don’t cling onto anything, good or bad. Don’t repeat much. Take what was good and do it differently. And ends with: “And something else and something else.” This inspires several thoughts, which I’ll take advantage of the blog format to present with no attempt to be cohesively organized. 1. My first concern is the extent to which productivity-enhancing advice such as Davies’s (and Basbøll’s) is zero or even negative-sum , just helping people in the rat race. But, upon reflection, I’d rate the recommendations as positive-sum. If people learn to write better and be more productive, that’s not (necessarily) just positional. 2. Blogging fits with the “Do it quickly and do it often” advice. 3. I wonder what Basbøll thinks abo
6 0.77910542 826 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-27-The Statistics Forum!
7 0.76576203 1351 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-29-A Ph.D. thesis is not really a marathon
8 0.75304669 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
9 0.74143058 1602 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-01-The purpose of writing
10 0.74119741 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
11 0.73175985 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
12 0.72305334 104 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-22-Seeking balance
13 0.71815312 790 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Blog in motion
14 0.7127071 2064 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-16-Test run for G+ hangout for my Bayesian Data Analysis class
15 0.70909303 806 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-6 links
16 0.70427871 821 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-25-See me talk in the Upper West Side (without graphs) today
17 0.69826329 103 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-22-Beach reads, Proust, and income tax
18 0.69384831 1084 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-Tweeting the Hits?
19 0.68988937 868 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-24-Blogs vs. real journalism
20 0.68719572 1198 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-05-A cloud with a silver lining
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.041), (3, 0.037), (15, 0.032), (16, 0.188), (22, 0.054), (73, 0.039), (86, 0.046), (90, 0.083), (99, 0.352)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96957785 2329 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-11-“What should you talk about?”
Introduction: Tyler Cowen quotes Robin Hanson: If your main reason for talking is to socialize, you’ll want to talk about whatever everyone else is talking about. Like say the missing Malaysia Airlines plane. But if instead your purpose is to gain and spread useful insight, so that we can all understand more about things that matter, you’ll want to look for relatively neglected topics. . . . One advantage of having this blog on a lag of a month or two is that I can post things, knowing that when my discussion finally appears, it will no longer be topical. Indeed, this post is an example.
Introduction: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).
3 0.93106258 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
Introduction: We’ve had lots of lively discussions of fatally-flawed papers that have been published in top, top journals such as the American Economic Review or the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology or the American Sociological Review or the tabloids . And we also know about mistakes that make their way into mid-ranking outlets such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology. But what about results that appear in the lower tier of legitimate journals? I was thinking about this after reading a post by Dan Kahan slamming a paper that recently appeared in PLOS-One. I won’t discuss the paper itself here because that’s not my point. Rather, I had some thoughts regarding Kahan’s annoyance that a paper with fatal errors was published at all. I commented as follows: Read between the lines. The paper originally was released in 2009 and was published in 2013 in PLOS-One, which is one step above appearing on Arxiv. PLOS-One publishes some good things (so does Arxiv) but it’s the place
4 0.93026364 1495 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-13-Win $5000 in the Economist’s data visualization competition
Introduction: Michael Nelson points me to this . OK, $5,000 isn’t a lot of money (I’m not expecting Niall Ferguson in the competition), but I’m still glad to see this, given that the Economist is known for its excellent graphics.
Introduction: Our apartment is from earlier in the century, so I can’t give Tyler Cowen’s first answer , but, after that, I follow him in thinking of the several books I have from that decade. Beyond that, lemme think . . . We occasionally play Risk , and our set dates from the 50s. Some kitchen implements (a mixmaster, a couple of cookbooks, who knows which old bowls, forks, etc). Probably some of the furniture, although I don’t know which. Probably some of the items in our building (the boiler?) What else, I wonder? There are probably a few things I’m forgetting. 50-60 years is a long time, I guess. P.S. to the commenters: I’m taking the question to refer to things manufactured in the 1950s and not before!
6 0.92876697 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
7 0.92700207 1022 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-21-Progress for the Poor
8 0.92497873 869 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-24-Mister P in Stata
9 0.92422336 725 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-21-People kept emailing me this one so I think I have to blog something
10 0.92405832 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
11 0.92318034 54 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-27-Hype about conditional probability puzzles
13 0.92242849 967 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-Picking on Gregg Easterbrook
14 0.92099911 2197 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-04-Peabody here.
15 0.92097795 321 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-05-Racism!
16 0.92090321 2107 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-20-NYT (non)-retraction watch
17 0.91918457 722 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Why no Wegmania?
18 0.91847622 909 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-7 steps to successful infographics
19 0.91684496 316 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-Suggested reading for a prospective statistician?
20 0.91682309 365 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-24-Erving Goffman archives