andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2363 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. [sent-1, score-1.311]
2 I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana. [sent-4, score-0.913]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('lior', 0.35), ('pachter', 0.35), ('marijuana', 0.33), ('cannabis', 0.33), ('austin', 0.296), ('purported', 0.257), ('david', 0.256), ('criticized', 0.225), ('interested', 0.207), ('criticizing', 0.198), ('latest', 0.178), ('send', 0.159), ('heard', 0.148), ('paper', 0.146), ('findings', 0.138), ('scientific', 0.117), ('effects', 0.109), ('someone', 0.099), ('points', 0.091), ('recent', 0.09), ('post', 0.09), ('ve', 0.059), ('know', 0.056)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
2 0.18378174 1910 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-22-Struggles over the criticism of the “cannabis users and IQ change” paper
Introduction: Ole Rogeberg points me to a discussion of a discussion of a paper: Did pre-release of my [Rogeberg's] PNAS paper on methodological problems with Meier et al’s 2012 paper on cannabis and IQ reduce the chances that it will have its intended effect? In my case, serious methodological issues related to causal inference from non-random observational data became framed as a conflict over conclusions, forcing the original research team to respond rapidly and insufficiently to my concerns, and prompting them to defend their conclusions and original paper in a way that makes a later, more comprehensive reanalysis of their data less likely. This fits with a recurring theme on this blog: the defensiveness of researchers who don’t want to admit they were wrong. Setting aside cases of outright fraud and plagiarism, I think the worst case remains that of psychologists Neil Anderson and Deniz Ones, who denied any problems even in the presence of a smoking gun of a graph revealing their data
3 0.11238609 1360 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-02-Helpful on happiness
Introduction: Following on our recent discussion of contradictory findings on happiness, David Austin writes: A pellucid discussion of happiness and happiness research is Fred Feldman, What is This Thing Called Happiness? (Oxford University Press, 2010). And here’s Feldman’s summary of his book.
4 0.10423578 124 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-02-Note to the quals
Introduction: See here for latest rant.
5 0.09347859 2279 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-02-Am I too negative?
Introduction: For background, you can start by reading my recent article, Is It Possible to Be an Ethicist Without Being Mean to People? and then a blog post, Quality over Quantity , by John Cook, who writes: At one point [Ed] Tufte spoke more generally and more personally about pursuing quality over quantity. He said most papers are not worth reading and that he learned early on to concentrate on the great papers, maybe one in 500, that are worth reading and rereading rather than trying to “keep up with the literature.” He also explained how over time he has concentrated more on showcasing excellent work than on criticizing bad work. You can see this in the progression from his first book to his latest. (Criticizing bad work is important too, but you’ll have to read his early books to find more of that. He won’t spend as much time talking about it in his course.) That reminded me of Jesse Robbins’ line: “Don’t fight stupid. You are better than that. Make more awesome.” This made me stop an
6 0.091734365 871 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-26-Be careful what you control for . . . you just might get it!
7 0.085317716 2356 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-02-On deck this week
8 0.078632191 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
9 0.07777793 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
10 0.070400067 2006 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Evaluating evidence from published research
11 0.066413671 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
12 0.064854175 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
13 0.064507715 122 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-01-MCMC machine
15 0.061300043 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
16 0.060785346 2121 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-02-Should personal genetic testing be regulated? Battle of the blogroll
17 0.058922883 472 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-So-called fixed and random effects
18 0.056643058 1644 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-30-Fixed effects, followed by Bayes shrinkage?
19 0.055893943 10 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-29-Alternatives to regression for social science predictions
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.074), (1, -0.019), (2, -0.025), (3, -0.058), (4, -0.008), (5, -0.021), (6, 0.003), (7, -0.04), (8, -0.021), (9, 0.009), (10, 0.019), (11, 0.017), (12, 0.012), (13, -0.012), (14, 0.018), (15, 0.037), (16, -0.014), (17, 0.013), (18, -0.029), (19, 0.026), (20, 0.012), (21, 0.019), (22, 0.024), (23, -0.039), (24, -0.013), (25, -0.01), (26, -0.004), (27, 0.019), (28, -0.003), (29, 0.003), (30, 0.008), (31, 0.006), (32, -0.025), (33, -0.039), (34, 0.0), (35, -0.027), (36, 0.007), (37, -0.045), (38, -0.004), (39, -0.012), (40, 0.01), (41, 0.024), (42, 0.029), (43, -0.056), (44, -0.001), (45, -0.005), (46, -0.0), (47, -0.011), (48, -0.003), (49, 0.006)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9700132 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
2 0.71330696 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
Introduction: Joshua Vogelstein points me to this blog entry by Robert Tucci, diplomatically titled “Unethical or Really Dumb (or both) Scientists from University of Adelaide ‘Rediscover’ My Version of Grover’s Algorithm”: The Chappell et al. paper has 24 references but does not refer to my paper, even though their paper and mine are eerily similar. Compare them yourself. With the excellent Google and ArXiv search engines, I [Tucci] would say there is zero probability that none of its five authors knew about my paper before they wrote theirs. Chappell responds in the comments: Your paper is timestamped 2010; however the results of our paper was initially presented at the Cairns CQIQC conference in July 2008. . . . The intention of our paper is not a research article. It is a tutorial paper. . . . We had not seen your paper before. Our paper is based on the standard Grover search, not a fixed point search. Hence, your paper did not come to our attention, as we were not concerned with
3 0.6330477 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
Introduction: With some upgrades from a previous post . And with a hopefully clear 40+ page draft paper (see page 16). Drawing Inference – Literally and by Individual Contribution.pdf Comments are welcome, though my reponses may be delayed. (Working on how to best render the graphs.) K? p.s. Plot was modified so that it might be better interpreted without reading any of the paper – though I would not suggest that – reading at least pages 1 to 17 is recomended.
4 0.62182516 2069 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-19-R package for effect size calculations for psychology researchers
Introduction: Dan Gerlanc writes: I read your post the other day [now the other month, as our blog is on a bit of a delay] on helping psychologists do research and thought you might be interested in our R package, “bootES”, for robust effect size calculation and confidence interval estimation using resampling techniques. The package provides one function, ‘bootES’, that makes a variety of effect size calculations fairly straightforward for researchers with limited programming experience. The majority of the implemented are not available in R or SPSS without custom coding. Kris Kirby (Williams College) and I have published a paper in Behavioral Research Methods describing the methods and providing a tutorial on use of the package: http://bit.ly/YIM6VD. We hope that it’s useful to psychologists and other social science researchers! I haven’t tried this out but it might be of interest for some of you.
Introduction: Last week I published in Slate a critique of a paper that appeared in the journal Psychological Science. That paper, by Alec Beall and Jessica Tracy, found that women who were at peak fertility were three times more likely to wear red or pink shirts, compared to women at other points in their menstrual cycles. The study was based an 100 participants on the internet and 24 college students. In my critique, I argued that we had no reason to believe the results generalized to the larger population, because (1) the samples were not representative, (2) the measurements were noisy, (3) the researchers did not use the correct dates of peak fertility, and (4) there were many different comparisons that could have been reported in the data, so there was nothing special about a particular comparison being statistically significant. I likened their paper to other work which I considered flawed for multiple comparisons (too many researcher degrees of freedom), including a claimed relation bet
6 0.61921364 1074 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-Reading a research paper != agreeing with its claims
7 0.61452305 2237 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-08-Disagreeing to disagree
8 0.61353511 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
9 0.61258531 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
11 0.6094107 710 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-Missed Friday the 13th Zombie Plot Update
12 0.6054194 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
13 0.59875542 2283 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-06-An old discussion of food deserts
14 0.5987215 2289 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-11-“More research from the lunatic fringe”
15 0.59683353 1250 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-07-Hangman tips
17 0.59512383 2236 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-07-Selection bias in the reporting of shaky research
18 0.59347916 2243 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-The myth of the myth of the myth of the hot hand
topicId topicWeight
[(32, 0.058), (48, 0.385), (72, 0.083), (86, 0.045), (87, 0.088), (99, 0.163)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.89327621 2363 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-07-“Does researching casual marijuana use cause brain abnormalities?”
Introduction: David Austin points me to a wonderfully-titled post by Lior Pachter criticizing a recent paper on the purported effects of cannabis use. Not the paper criticized here . Someone should send this all to David Brooks. I’ve heard he’s interested in the latest scientific findings, and I know he’s interested in marijuana.
2 0.85156053 493 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-31-Obituaries in 2010
Introduction: David Blackwell . Julian Besag . Arnold Zellner . Benoit Mandelbrot and Hirotugu Akaike (late) . Alfred Kahn .
3 0.72541517 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
Introduction: Martin Lindquist writes that he and others are trying to start a new ASA section on statistics in imaging. If you’re interested in being a signatory to its formation, please send him an email.
4 0.69621849 841 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-06-Twitteo killed the bloggio star . . . Not!
Introduction: Alex Braunstein writes: Thanks for the post . You drove >800 pageviews to my site. That’s >90% of what Robert Scoble’s tweet generated with 184k followers, which I find incredibly impressive. 800 doesn’t sound like so much to me, but I suppose if it’s the right 800 . . .
5 0.6917609 1088 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-Argument in favor of Ddulites
Introduction: Mark Palko defines a Ddulite as follows: A preference for higher tech solutions even in cases where lower tech alternatives have greater and more appropriate functionality; a person of ddulite tendencies. Though Ddulites are the opposite of Luddites with respect to attitudes toward technology, they occupy more or less the same point with respect to functionality. As a sometime Luddite myself (no cell phone, tv, microwave oven, etc.), I should in fairness point out the logic in favor of being a Ddulite. Old technology is typically pretty stable; new technology is improving. It can make sense to switch early (before the new technology actually performs better than the old) to get the benefits of being familiar with the new technology once it does take off.
6 0.64539492 2126 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-07-If I could’ve done it all over again
8 0.59376675 202 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Job openings in multilevel modeling in Bristol, England
9 0.58409137 181 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-MCMC in Python
10 0.55569303 2147 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Measuring Beauty
11 0.55190718 212 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Futures contracts, Granger causality, and my preference for estimation to testing
13 0.51631057 1234 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-28-The Supreme Court’s Many Median Justices
14 0.50643426 2240 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-On deck this week: Things people sent me
15 0.50633025 1496 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-14-Sides and Vavreck on the 2012 election
16 0.48134845 681 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-26-Worst statistical graphic I have seen this year
17 0.46515071 976 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Geophysicist Discovers Modeling Error (in Economics)
18 0.46414119 2333 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-13-Personally, I’d rather go with Teragram
19 0.45968103 823 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-26-Including interactions or not
20 0.45526722 316 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-Suggested reading for a prospective statistician?