[relevant video] Thanatos Savehn is right. This obituary, written by someone named “Daniel Slotnik” (!), is just awesome: Many gamblers see roulette as a game of pure chance — a wheel is spun, a ball is released and winners and losers are determined by luck. Richard Jarecki refused to believe it was that simple. He […]
[Somewhat-relevant image] It seems that some people’s comments are getting trapped in the spam filter. Here’s how things go. The blog software triages the comments: 1. Most legitimate comments are automatically approved. You write the comment and it shows up right away. 2. Some comments are flagged as potentially spam. About half of these are […]
The post Trapped in the spam folder? Here’s what to do. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Someone pointed me to this post from a few years ago where Rafael Irizarry argues that scientific “pessimists” such as myself are, at least in some fields, “missing a critical point: that in practice, there is an inverse relationship between increasing rates of true discoveries and decreasing rates of false discoveries and that true discoveries […]
Here’s why I don’t like the term “multi-armed bandit” to describe the exploration-exploitation tradeoff of inference and decision analysis. First, and less importantly, each slot machine (or “bandit”) only has one arm. Hence it’s many one-armed bandits, not one multi-armed bandit. Second, the basic strategy in these problems is to play on lots of machines […]
The post Don’t call it a bandit appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Introduction Zacco asked in Stan discourse whether LOO is valid for phylogenetic models. He also referred to Dan’s excellent blog post which mentioned iid assumption. Instead of iid it would be better to talk about exchangeability assumption, but I (Aki) got a bit lost in my discourse answer (so don’t bother to go read it). […]
The post When LOO and other cross-validation approaches are valid appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Paul Alper points to this horrifying news article by Mary Chris Jaklevic, “how a medical device ‘seeding trial’ disguised marketing as science.” I’d never heard of “seeding trials” before. Here’s Jaklevic: As a new line of hip implants was about to be launched in 2000, a stunning email went out from the manufacturer’s marketing department. […]
The post “Seeding trials”: medical marketing disguised as science appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
tl;dr If you have bad models, bad priors or bad inference choose the simplest possible model. If you have good models, good priors, good inference, use the most elaborate model for predictions. To make interpretation easier you may use a smaller model with similar predictive performance as the most elaborate model. Merijn Mestdagh emailed me […]
I was going to write a post with the above title, but now I don’t remember what I was going to say!
The post From no-data to data: The awkward transition appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
I could not think of a good title for this post. My first try was “An institutional model for the persistence of false belief, but I don’t think it’s helpful to describe scientific paradigms as ‘true’ or ‘false.’ Also, boo on cheap laughs at the expense of academia,” and later attempts were even worse. At […]
The post Where that title came from appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Bart Turczynski writes: I read the following blog with a lot of excitement: Then I reread it and paid attention to the graphs and models (which don’t seem to be actual models, but rather, well, lines.) The story makes sense, but the science part is questionable (or at least unclear.) Perhaps you’d like to have […]
The post Data-based ways of getting a job appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.