Posts Tagged ‘ Zombies ’

No, there is no epidemic of loneliness. (Or, Dog Bites Man: David Brooks runs another column based on fake stats)

May 16, 2018
By

[adorable image] Remember David Brooks? The NYT columnist, NPR darling, and former reporter who couldn’t correctly report the price of a meal at Red Lobster? The guy who got it wrong about where billionaires come from and who thought it was fun to use one of his columns to make fun of a urologist (ha […] The post No, there is no epidemic of loneliness. (Or, Dog Bites Man: David…

Read more »

“Eureka bias”: When you think you made a discovery and then you don’t want to give it up, even if it turns out you interpreted your data wrong

May 16, 2018
By

This came in the email one day: I am writing to you with my own (very) small story of error-checking a published finding. If you end up posting any of this, please remove my name! A few years ago, a well-read business journal published an article by a senior-level employee at my company. One of […] The post “Eureka bias”: When you think you made a discovery and then you…

Read more »

Another U.S. government advisor from Columbia University!

May 4, 2018
By

Cool! We’ve had Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Clarida, Jeff Sachs, those guys from the movie Inside Job, and now . . . Dr. Oz. Government service at its finest. The pizzagate guy was from Cornell, though. The post Ano...

Read more »

Doomsday! Problems with interpreting a confidence interval when there is no evidence for the assumed sampling model

May 4, 2018
By
Doomsday!  Problems with interpreting a confidence interval when there is no evidence for the assumed sampling model

Mark Brown pointed me to a credulous news article in the Washington Post, “We have a pretty good idea of when humans will go extinct,” which goes: A Princeton University astrophysicist named J. Richard Gott has a surprisingly precise answer to that question . . . to understand how he arrived at it and what […] The post Doomsday! Problems with interpreting a confidence interval when there is no evidence…

Read more »

“We continuously increased the number of animals until statistical significance was reached to support our conclusions” . . . I think this is not so bad, actually!

May 2, 2018
By
“We continuously increased the number of animals until statistical significance was reached to support our conclusions” . . . I think this is not so bad, actually!

Jordan Anaya pointed me to this post, in which Casper Albers shared this snippet from a recently-published paper from an article in Nature Communications: The subsequent twitter discussion is all about “false discovery rate” and statistical significance, which I think completely misses the point. The problems Before I get to why I think the quoted […] The post “We continuously increased the number of animals until statistical significance was reached…

Read more »

Early p-hacking investments substantially boost adult publication record

April 29, 2018
By

In a post with the title “Overstated findings, published in Science, on long-term health effects of a well-known early childhood program,” Perry Wilson writes: In this paper [“Early Childhood Investments Substantially Boost Adult Health,” by Frances Campbell, Gabriella Conti, James Heckman, Seong Hyeok Moon, Rodrigo Pinto, Elizabeth Pungello, and Yi Pan], published in Science in […] The post Early p-hacking investments substantially boost adult publication record appeared first on Statistical…

Read more »

The syllogism that ate social science

April 28, 2018
By

I’ve been thinking about this one for awhile and expressed it most recently in this blog comment: There’s the following reasoning which I’ve not seen explicitly stated but is I think how many people think. It goes like this: – Researcher does a study which he or she thinks is well designed. – Researcher obtains […] The post The syllogism that ate social science appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal…

Read more »

Don’t do the Wilcoxon (reprise)

April 26, 2018
By

František Bartoš writes: I’ve read your and various others statistical books and from most of them, I gained a perception, that nonparametric tests aren’t very useful and are mostly a relic from pre-computer ages. However, this week I witnessed a discussion about this (in Psych. methods discussion group on FB) and most of the responses […] The post Don’t do the Wilcoxon (reprise) appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference,…

Read more »

The cargo cult continues

April 23, 2018
By

Juan Carlos Lopez writes: Here’s a news article: . . . Here’s the paper: . . . [Details removed to avoid embarrassing the authors of the article in question.] I [Lopez] am especially bothered by the abstract of this paper, which makes bold claims in the context of a small and noisy study which measurements […] The post The cargo cult continues appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and…

Read more »

An Upbeat Mood May Boost Your Paper’s Publicity

April 17, 2018
By

Gur Huberman points to this news article, An Upbeat Mood May Boost Your Flu Shot’s Effectiveness, which states: A new study suggests that older people who are in a good mood when they get the shot have a better immune response. British researchers followed 138 people ages 65 to 85 who got the 2014-15 vaccine. […] The post An Upbeat Mood May Boost Your Paper’s Publicity appeared first on Statistical…

Read more »


Subscribe

Email:

  Subscribe