Author: Andrew

Data concerns when interpreting comparisons of gender equality between countries

A journalist pointed me to this research article, “Gender equality and sex differences in personality: evidence from a large, multi-national sample,” by Tim Kaiser, which reports: A large, multinational (N = 926,383) dataset was used to examine sex differences in Big Five facet scores for 70 countries. Difference scores were aggregated to a multivariate effect […]

The post Data concerns when interpreting comparisons of gender equality between countries appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Data concerns when interpreting comparisons of gender equality between countries

A journalist pointed me to this research article, “Gender equality and sex differences in personality: evidence from a large, multi-national sample,” by Tim Kaiser (see also news report by Angela Lashbrook here), which states: A large, multinational (N = 926,383) dataset was used to examine sex differences in Big Five facet scores for 70 countries. […]

The post Data concerns when interpreting comparisons of gender equality between countries appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The scandal isn’t what’s retracted, the scandal is what’s not retracted.

Andrew Han at Retraction Watch reports on a paper, “Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations,” published in 2014 by Mark Hatzenbuehler, Anna Bellatorre, Yeonjin Lee, Brian Finch, Peter Muennig, and Kevin Fiscella, that claimed: Sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice experienced a higher hazard of mortality than […]

The post The scandal isn’t what’s retracted, the scandal is what’s not retracted. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The scandal isn’t what’s retracted, the scandal is what’s not retracted.

Andrew Han at Retraction Watch reports on a paper, “Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations,” published in 2014 by Mark Hatzenbuehler, Anna Bellatorre, Yeonjin Lee, Brian Finch, Peter Muennig, and Kevin Fiscella, that claimed: Sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice experienced a higher hazard of mortality than […]

The post The scandal isn’t what’s retracted, the scandal is what’s not retracted. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The competing narratives of scientific revolution

Back when we were reading Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery and Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, who would’ve thought that we’d be living through a scientific revolution ourselves? Scientific revolutions occur on all scales, but here let’s talk about some of the biggies: 1850-1950: Darwinian revolution in biology, changed how we think about […]

The post The competing narratives of scientific revolution appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The competing narratives of scientific revolution

Back when we were reading Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery and Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, who would’ve thought that we’d be living through a scientific revolution ourselves? Scientific revolutions occur on all scales, but here let’s talk about some of the biggies: 1850-1950: Darwinian revolution in biology, changed how we think about […]

The post The competing narratives of scientific revolution appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Let’s get hysterical

Following up on our discussion of hysteresis in the scientific community, Nick Brown points us to this article from 2014, “Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications in Modern Science,” by Mathias Binswanger, who writes: To ensure the efficient use of scarce funds, the government forces universities and professors, together with their academic staff, to […]

The post Let’s get hysterical appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Let’s get hysterical

Following up on our discussion of hysteresis in the scientific community, Nick Brown points us to this article this article from 2014, “Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications in Modern Science,” by Mathias Binswanger, who writes: To ensure the efficient use of scarce funds, the government forces universities and professors, together with their academic […]

The post Let’s get hysterical appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition

I happened to come across this post from 2012 and noticed a point I’d like to share again. I was discussing an article by David Cox and Deborah Mayo, in which Cox wrote: [Bayesians’] conceptual theories are trying to do two entirely different things. One is trying to extract information from the data, while the […]

The post The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition

I happened to come across this post from 2012 and noticed a point I’d like to share again. I was discussing an article by David Cox and Deborah Mayo, in which Cox wrote: [Bayesians’] conceptual theories are trying to do two entirely different things. One is trying to extract information from the data, while the […]

The post The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

No, I don’t think it’s the file drawer effect

Someone named Andrew Certain writes: I’ve been reading your blog since your appearance on Econtalk . . . explaining the ways in which statistics are misused/misinterpreted in low-sample/high-noise studies. . . . I recently came across a meta-analysis on stereotype threat [a reanalysis by Emil Kirkegaard] by that identified a clear relationship between smaller sample […]

The post No, I don’t think it’s the file drawer effect appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

No, I don’t think it’s the file drawer effect

Someone named Andrew Certain writes: I’ve been reading your blog since your appearance on Econtalk . . . explaining the ways in which statistics are misused/misinterpreted in low-sample/high-noise studies. . . . I recently came across a meta-analysis on stereotype threat [a reanalysis by Emil Kirkegaard] by that identified a clear relationship between smaller sample […]

The post No, I don’t think it’s the file drawer effect appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Cool tennis-tracking app

Swupnil Sahai writes that he’s developed Swing, “the best app for tracking all of your tennis stats, and maybe we’ll expand to other sports in the future.” According to Swupnil, the app runs on Apple Watch making predictions in real time. I hope in the future they’ll incorporate some hierarchical modeling to deal with sparse-data […]

The post Cool tennis-tracking app appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Cool tennis-tracking app

Swupnil Sahai writes that he’s developed Swing, “the best app for tracking all of your tennis stats, and maybe we’ll expand to other sports in the future.” According to Swupnil, the app runs on Apple Watch making predictions in real time. I hope in the future they’ll incorporate some hierarchical modeling to deal with sparse-data […]

The post Cool tennis-tracking app appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

It should be ok to just publish the data.

Gur Huberman asked for my reaction to a recent manuscript, Are CEOs Different? Characteristics of Top Managers, by Steven Kaplan and Morten Sorensen. The paper begins: We use a dataset of over 2,600 executive assessments to study thirty individual characteristics of candidates for top executive positions – CEO, CFO, COO and others. We classify the […]

The post It should be ok to just publish the data. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

It should be ok to just publish the data.

Gur Huberman asked for my reaction to a recent manuscript, Are CEOs Different? Characteristics of Top Managers, by Steven Kaplan and Morten Sorensen. The paper begins: We use a dataset of over 2,600 executive assessments to study thirty individual characteristics of candidates for top executive positions – CEO, CFO, COO and others. We classify the […]

The post It should be ok to just publish the data. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

It was the weeds that bothered him.

Bill Jefferys points to this news article by Denise Grady. Bill noticed the following bit, “In male rats, the studies linked tumors in the heart to high exposure to radiation from the phones. But that problem did not occur in female rats, or any mice,” and asked: ​Forking paths, much? My reply: The summary of […]

The post It was the weeds that bothered him. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

It was the weeds that bothered him.

Bill Jefferys points to this news article by Denise Grady. Bill noticed the following bit, “In male rats, the studies linked tumors in the heart to high exposure to radiation from the phones. But that problem did not occur in female rats, or any mice,” and asked: ​Forking paths, much? My reply: The summary of […]

The post It was the weeds that bothered him. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.