andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2330 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: This post is by David K. Park Even though I’m an engineer with a PhD in political science, I tend to gravitate toward history to anchor my contextual lens. (If fact, if I were pressed to put a methodological stake in the ground, I would say I’m a historical comparative institutional ecologist.) In that regard, it may be helpful to situate this discussion within the broader historical arc of intellectual pursuits at universities. As we know with the birth of universities, we had scholars who embodied so many disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, religion law, etc into one individual. Then in the 50′s and 60′s we started going into hyper-specialization mode, and it was necessary because we needed to better understand our specific domains. In the 80s and 90s, certain disciplines started to recognize the importance of other disciplines on their work but the tendency was to bring those skills into a single individual. So we produced, by way of e.g., law professors who could do ga
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Park Even though I’m an engineer with a PhD in political science, I tend to gravitate toward history to anchor my contextual lens. [sent-2, score-0.297]
2 (If fact, if I were pressed to put a methodological stake in the ground, I would say I’m a historical comparative institutional ecologist. [sent-3, score-0.618]
3 ) In that regard, it may be helpful to situate this discussion within the broader historical arc of intellectual pursuits at universities. [sent-4, score-0.615]
4 As we know with the birth of universities, we had scholars who embodied so many disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, religion law, etc into one individual. [sent-5, score-0.698]
5 Then in the 50′s and 60′s we started going into hyper-specialization mode, and it was necessary because we needed to better understand our specific domains. [sent-6, score-0.107]
6 In the 80s and 90s, certain disciplines started to recognize the importance of other disciplines on their work but the tendency was to bring those skills into a single individual. [sent-7, score-0.835]
7 , law professors who could do game theory, political scientists who could run sophisticated statistical models, sociologists who could run network analysis, etc. [sent-10, score-0.392]
8 However, we are now at a juncture where there maybe a self awareness among a generation of scholars that not only do they need to read across disciplinary lines but truly interact with colleagues outside their disciplines to make new insights and discoveries. [sent-11, score-1.161]
9 The recognition seems to be that the grand challenges we face are larger than one individual, one discipline, but not necessarily one institution. [sent-12, score-0.392]
10 Therefore, embedded in this discussion is this narrative of what should or can a university do to enable truly “transdisciplinary” research to help tackle and answer some of the larger intellectual questions as well as pressing grand challenges facing society . [sent-13, score-1.356]
11 Can we design and implement an institutional framework and mechanism which allows for this type of research? [sent-14, score-0.4]
12 Interestingly, by way of analogy, Acemoglu and Robinson, in Why Nations Fail , do a wonderful job laying out the case for this type of framework for the success of countries, which could readily apply to this discussion as well. [sent-15, score-0.522]
13 As is often the case, it’s understanding the processes by which we get to the breakthroughs that is more challenging that understanding the breakthrough itself. [sent-16, score-0.499]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('disciplines', 0.364), ('institutional', 0.169), ('grand', 0.16), ('intellectual', 0.145), ('truly', 0.14), ('challenges', 0.138), ('scholars', 0.135), ('historical', 0.131), ('framework', 0.126), ('acemoglu', 0.124), ('pursuits', 0.124), ('pressed', 0.124), ('arc', 0.124), ('juncture', 0.124), ('disciplinary', 0.124), ('breakthroughs', 0.124), ('embodied', 0.116), ('law', 0.116), ('breakthrough', 0.111), ('gravitate', 0.108), ('laying', 0.108), ('pressing', 0.108), ('started', 0.107), ('type', 0.105), ('robinson', 0.104), ('comparative', 0.102), ('tackle', 0.102), ('embedded', 0.102), ('contextual', 0.097), ('nations', 0.095), ('interact', 0.095), ('larger', 0.094), ('run', 0.094), ('narrative', 0.094), ('facing', 0.092), ('readily', 0.092), ('stake', 0.092), ('engineer', 0.092), ('awareness', 0.091), ('discussion', 0.091), ('enable', 0.09), ('understanding', 0.089), ('self', 0.088), ('sociologists', 0.088), ('interestingly', 0.087), ('regard', 0.087), ('discipline', 0.087), ('challenging', 0.086), ('birth', 0.083), ('park', 0.081)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999964 2330 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-12-Historical Arc of Universities
Introduction: This post is by David K. Park Even though I’m an engineer with a PhD in political science, I tend to gravitate toward history to anchor my contextual lens. (If fact, if I were pressed to put a methodological stake in the ground, I would say I’m a historical comparative institutional ecologist.) In that regard, it may be helpful to situate this discussion within the broader historical arc of intellectual pursuits at universities. As we know with the birth of universities, we had scholars who embodied so many disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, religion law, etc into one individual. Then in the 50′s and 60′s we started going into hyper-specialization mode, and it was necessary because we needed to better understand our specific domains. In the 80s and 90s, certain disciplines started to recognize the importance of other disciplines on their work but the tendency was to bring those skills into a single individual. So we produced, by way of e.g., law professors who could do ga
Introduction: Responding to a proposal to move the journal Political Analysis from double-blind to single-blind reviewing (that is, authors would not know who is reviewing their papers but reviewers would know the authors’ names), Tom Palfrey writes: I agree with the editors’ recommendation. I have served on quite a few editorial boards of journals with different blinding policies, and have seen no evidence that double blind procedures are a useful way to improve the quality of articles published in a journal. Aside from the obvious administrative nuisance and the fact that authorship anonymity is a thing of the past in our discipline, the theoretical and empirical arguments in both directions lead to an ambiguous conclusion. Also keep in mind that the editors know the identity of the authors (they need to know for practical reasons), their identity is not hidden from authors, and ultimately it is they who make the accept/reject decision, and also lobby their friends and colleagues to submit “the
3 0.1036229 236 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-26-Teaching yourself mathematics
Introduction: Some thoughts from Mark Palko: Of all the subjects a student is likely to encounter after elementary school, mathematics is by far the easiest to teach yourself. . . . What is it that makes math teachers so expendable? . . . At some point all disciplines require the transition from passive to active and that transition can be challenging. In courses like high school history and science, the emphasis on passively acquiring knowledge (yes, I realize that students write essays in history classes and apply formulas in science classes but that represents a relatively small portion of their time and, more importantly, the work those students do is fundamentally different from the day-to-day work done by historians and scientists). By comparison, junior high students playing in an orchestra, writing short stories or solving math problems are almost entirely focused on processes and those processes are essentially the same as those engaged in by professional musicians, writers and mat
4 0.098446995 1111 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-The blog of the Cultural Cognition Project
Introduction: Dan Kahan and colleagues write : The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities. Project members are using the methods of various disciplines — including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science — to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decisionmaking by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and c
5 0.090326861 777 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-23-Combining survey data obtained using different modes of sampling
Introduction: I’m involved (with Irv Garfinkel and others) in a planned survey of New York City residents. It’s hard to reach people in the city–not everyone will answer their mail or phone, and you can’t send an interviewer door-to-door in a locked apartment building. (I think it violates IRB to have a plan of pushing all the buzzers by the entrance and hoping someone will let you in.) So the plan is to use multiple modes, including phone, in person household, random street intercepts and mail. The question then is how to combine these samples. My suggested approach is to divide the population into poststrata based on various factors (age, ethnicity, family type, housing type, etc), then to pool responses within each poststratum, then to runs some regressions including postratsta and also indicators for mode, to understand how respondents from different modes differ, after controlling for the demographic/geographic adjustments. Maybe this has already been done and written up somewhere? P.
7 0.08879035 309 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-01-Why Development Economics Needs Theory?
8 0.086835347 255 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-04-How does multilevel modeling affect the estimate of the grand mean?
9 0.084644966 1280 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-24-Non-Bayesian analysis of Bayesian agents?
10 0.082551539 2046 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-01-I’ll say it again
11 0.081739575 47 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-Of home runs and grand slams
12 0.07568644 1170 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-16-A previous discussion with Charles Murray about liberals, conservatives, and social class
15 0.073470905 2173 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-15-Postdoc involving pathbreaking work in MRP, Stan, and the 2014 election!
17 0.070190348 1615 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-10-A defense of Tom Wolfe based on the impossibility of the law of small numbers in network structure
18 0.069922686 604 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-08-More on the missing conservative psychology researchers
19 0.068309762 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
20 0.067037731 1271 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Education could use some systematic evaluation
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.145), (1, -0.028), (2, -0.02), (3, -0.017), (4, -0.02), (5, 0.025), (6, -0.036), (7, -0.003), (8, -0.005), (9, 0.043), (10, -0.04), (11, -0.003), (12, -0.016), (13, 0.005), (14, -0.009), (15, 0.002), (16, -0.013), (17, -0.03), (18, -0.005), (19, 0.005), (20, -0.016), (21, -0.017), (22, -0.031), (23, 0.025), (24, 0.019), (25, -0.016), (26, 0.024), (27, 0.034), (28, -0.025), (29, -0.035), (30, 0.018), (31, -0.017), (32, -0.017), (33, 0.014), (34, 0.025), (35, -0.05), (36, -0.039), (37, 0.012), (38, 0.049), (39, -0.009), (40, 0.04), (41, -0.01), (42, -0.023), (43, -0.044), (44, -0.038), (45, -0.027), (46, 0.042), (47, 0.02), (48, -0.012), (49, 0.008)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95722276 2330 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-12-Historical Arc of Universities
Introduction: This post is by David K. Park Even though I’m an engineer with a PhD in political science, I tend to gravitate toward history to anchor my contextual lens. (If fact, if I were pressed to put a methodological stake in the ground, I would say I’m a historical comparative institutional ecologist.) In that regard, it may be helpful to situate this discussion within the broader historical arc of intellectual pursuits at universities. As we know with the birth of universities, we had scholars who embodied so many disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, religion law, etc into one individual. Then in the 50′s and 60′s we started going into hyper-specialization mode, and it was necessary because we needed to better understand our specific domains. In the 80s and 90s, certain disciplines started to recognize the importance of other disciplines on their work but the tendency was to bring those skills into a single individual. So we produced, by way of e.g., law professors who could do ga
2 0.77799267 1947 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-20-We are what we are studying
Introduction: Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins writes : When native Australians or New Guineans say that their totemic animals and plants are their kinsmen – that these species are persons like themselves, and that in offering them to others they are giving away part of their own substance – we have to take them seriously, which is to say empirically, if we want to understand the large consequences of these facts for how they organise their lives. The graveyard of ethnographic studies is strewn with the remains of reports which, thanks to anthropologists’ own presuppositions as to what constitutes empirical fact, were content to ignore or debunk the Amazonian peoples who said that the animals they hunted were their brothers-in-law, the Africans who described the way they systematically killed their kings when they became weak, or the Fijian chiefs who claimed they were gods. My first thought was . . . wait a minute! Whazzat with “presuppositions as to what constitutes empirical fact”? That a
3 0.77116537 1335 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-21-Responding to a bizarre anti-social-science screed
Introduction: Philosophy professor Gary Gutting writes : Public policy debates often involve appeals to results of work in social sciences like economics and sociology. . . . How much authority should we give to such work in our policy decisions? . . . The core natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology) are so well established that we readily accept their best-supported conclusions as definitive. . . . But how reliable is even the best work on the effects of teaching? How, for example, does it compare with the best work by biochemists on the effects of light on plant growth? Since humans are much more complex than plants and biochemists have far more refined techniques for studying plants, we may well expect the biochemical work to be far more reliable. . . . While the physical sciences produce many detailed and precise predictions, the social sciences do not. OK, fine. But then comes the punchline: Given the limited predictive success and the lack of consensus in social scienc
4 0.76931185 1930 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-09-Symposium Magazine
Introduction: Symposium is a new online magazine subtitled “Where academia meets public life.” You can think of it as a sort of Slate magazine without Mickey Kaus, or as the Atlantic without the stylish writing. Here are the articles in the first issue, which has just been posted: Why Write the History of Capitalism? Louis Hyman A new generation of scholars is rewriting the story of capitalism by shaking off the old assumptions of both the Left and Right. Sorry, Wrong Number Andrew Gelman How do bad numbers get into circulation in our political discourse, and how do they stay there, even after being refuted? Historians and the Problem of Miracles Scott K. Taylor Historians, like most academics, are a secular lot. Is this a bias that prevents a deeper understanding of religious history? The Rebirth of Viewing Pleasure Jill Dolan By taking a fresh look at popular culture, students are breathing new life into feminist theories of a generation ago. Game Theory is Useful, E
5 0.74470133 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
Introduction: I’ve earlier written that science is science communication —that is, the act of communicating scientific ideas and findings to ourselves and others is itself a central part of science. My point was to push against a conventional separation between the act of science and the act of communication, the idea that science is done by scientists and communication is done by communicators. It’s a rare bit of science that does not include communication as part of it. As a scientist and science communicator myself, I’m particularly sensitive to devaluing of communication. (For example, Bayesian Data Analysis is full of original research that was done in order to communicate; or, to put it another way, we often think we understand a scientific idea, but once we try to communicate it, we recognize gaps in our understanding that motivate further research.) I once saw the following on one of those inspirational-sayings-for-every-day desk calendars: “To have ideas is to gather flowers. To thin
6 0.74233985 1111 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-The blog of the Cultural Cognition Project
7 0.74074626 604 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-08-More on the missing conservative psychology researchers
9 0.72796243 877 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-Applying quantum probability to political science
10 0.72722042 1414 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-12-Steven Pinker’s unconvincing debunking of group selection
11 0.71795529 1633 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-21-Kahan on Pinker on politics
12 0.71276039 2130 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-11-Multilevel marketing as a way of liquidating participants’ social networks
14 0.70907104 969 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-22-Researching the cost-effectiveness of political lobbying organisations
17 0.69371372 789 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-07-Descriptive statistics, causal inference, and story time
18 0.68703085 1866 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-21-Recently in the sister blog
19 0.67927492 1889 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-Using trends in R-squared to measure progress in criminology??
20 0.67375416 60 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-30-What Auteur Theory and Freshwater Economics have in common
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.042), (16, 0.05), (17, 0.037), (21, 0.046), (23, 0.01), (24, 0.166), (27, 0.01), (32, 0.011), (36, 0.053), (43, 0.089), (56, 0.012), (62, 0.02), (68, 0.027), (81, 0.016), (88, 0.012), (93, 0.026), (99, 0.262)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96711677 2330 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-12-Historical Arc of Universities
Introduction: This post is by David K. Park Even though I’m an engineer with a PhD in political science, I tend to gravitate toward history to anchor my contextual lens. (If fact, if I were pressed to put a methodological stake in the ground, I would say I’m a historical comparative institutional ecologist.) In that regard, it may be helpful to situate this discussion within the broader historical arc of intellectual pursuits at universities. As we know with the birth of universities, we had scholars who embodied so many disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, religion law, etc into one individual. Then in the 50′s and 60′s we started going into hyper-specialization mode, and it was necessary because we needed to better understand our specific domains. In the 80s and 90s, certain disciplines started to recognize the importance of other disciplines on their work but the tendency was to bring those skills into a single individual. So we produced, by way of e.g., law professors who could do ga
Introduction: Matt Taibbi writes : Glenn Hubbard, Leading Academic and Mitt Romney Advisor, Took $1200 an Hour to Be Countrywide’s Expert Witness . . . Hidden among the reams of material recently filed in connection with the lawsuit of monoline insurer MBIA against Bank of America and Countrywide is a deposition of none other than Columbia University’s Glenn Hubbard. . . . Hubbard testified on behalf of Countrywide in the MBIA suit. He conducted an “analysis” that essentially concluded that Countrywide’s loans weren’t any worse than the loans produced by other mortgage originators, and that therefore the monstrous losses that investors in those loans suffered were due to other factors related to the economic crisis – and not caused by the serial misrepresentations and fraud in Countrywide’s underwriting. That’s interesting, because I worked on the other side of this case! I was hired by MBIA’s lawyers. It wouldn’t be polite of me to reveal my consulting rate, and I never actually got depose
3 0.94880277 314 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-Disconnect between drug and medical device approval
Introduction: Sanjay Kaul wrotes: By statute (“the least burdensome” pathway), the approval standard for devices by the US FDA is lower than for drugs. Before a new drug can be marketed, the sponsor must show “substantial evidence of effectiveness” as based on two or more well-controlled clinical studies (which literally means 2 trials, each with a p value of <0.05, or 1 large trial with a robust p value <0.00125). In contrast, the sponsor of a new device, especially those that are designated as high-risk (Class III) device, need only demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to an FDA-approved device via the 510(k) exemption or a "reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness", evaluated through a pre-market approval and typically based on a single study. What does “reasonable assurance” or “substantial equivalence” imply to you as a Bayesian? These are obviously qualitative constructs, but if one were to quantify them, how would you go about addressing it? The regulatory definitions for
4 0.94412738 1882 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-03-The statistical properties of smart chains (and referral chains more generally)
Introduction: Louis Mittel writes: The premise of the column this guy is starting is interesting: Noah Davis interviews a smart person and then interviews the smartest person that smart person knows and so on. It reminded me of you mentioning survey design strategy of asking people about other people, like “How many people do you know named Stuart?” or “How many people do you know that have had an abortion?” Ignoring the interview aspect of what this guy is doing, I think there’s some cool questions about the distribution/path behavior of smartest-person-I-know chains (say, seeded at random). Do they loop? If so, how long do they run before looping, how large are the loops? What parts of the population do the explore? Do you know of anything that’s been done on something like this? My reply: Interesting question. It could be asked of any referral chain, for example asking a sequence of people, “Who’s the tallest person you know?” or “Who’s the best piano player you know” or “Who’
5 0.94097161 1860 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-17-How can statisticians help psychologists do their research better?
Introduction: I received two emails yesterday on related topics. First, Stephen Olivier pointed me to this post by Daniel Lakens, who wrote the following open call to statisticians: You would think that if you are passionate about statistics, then you want to help people to calculate them correctly in any way you can. . . . you’d think some statisticians would be interested in helping a poor mathematically challenged psychologist out by offering some practical advice. I’m the right person to ask this question, since I actually have written a lot of material that helps psychologists (and others) with their data analysis. But there clearly are communication difficulties, in that my work and that of other statisticians hasn’t reached Lakens. Sometimes the contributions of statisticians are made indirectly. For example, I wrote Bayesian Data Analysis, and then Kruschke wrote Doing Bayesian Data Analysis. Our statistics book made it possible for Kruschke to write his excellent book for psycholo
6 0.93947256 1920 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-30-“Non-statistical” statistics tools
7 0.93560493 1347 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-27-Macromuddle
8 0.93481165 538 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-25-Postdoc Position #2: Hierarchical Modeling and Statistical Graphics
9 0.93439925 481 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-22-The Jumpstart financial literacy survey and the different purposes of tests
11 0.93402499 1898 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-14-Progress! (on the understanding of the role of randomization in Bayesian inference)
12 0.93399173 1253 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-08-Technology speedup graph
14 0.92915881 770 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-15-Still more Mr. P in public health
15 0.92754829 511 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-11-One more time on that ESP study: The problem of overestimates and the shrinkage solution
16 0.92713892 2176 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-19-Transformations for non-normal data
17 0.9269191 2055 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-08-A Bayesian approach for peer-review panels? and a speculation about Bruno Frey
18 0.92677516 502 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Cash in, cash out graph
19 0.926323 247 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-01-How does Bayes do it?
20 0.92568386 803 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-14-Subtleties with measurement-error models for the evaluation of wacky claims