Roy Mendelssohn points me to this excellent bit of statistics reporting by Matt Novak. I have no comment, I just think it’s good to see this sort of high-quality Felix Salmon-style statistically savvy journalism.

Posted by Andrew on 6 June 2014, 9:08 am

Roy Mendelssohn points me to this excellent bit of statistics reporting by Matt Novak. I have no comment, I just think it’s good to see this sort of high-quality Felix Salmon-style statistically savvy journalism.

## Recent Comments

- Martha (Smith) on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Andrew on When does the quest for beauty lead science astray?
- Martha (Smith) on Power analysis and NIH-style statistical practice: What’s the implicit model?
- Anoneuoid on When does the quest for beauty lead science astray?
- Martha (Smith) on When does the quest for beauty lead science astray?
- Daniel Lakeland on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Marc Intrater on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- abuuu on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Anoneuoid on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Keith O'Rourke on When does the quest for beauty lead science astray?
- Ram on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Anoneuoid on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- JFA on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Que on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- Garnett on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- anon on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- JFA on Answering the question, What predictors are more important?, going beyond p-value thresholding and ranking
- strangetruther on When does the quest for beauty lead science astray?
- strangetruther on When does the quest for beauty lead science astray?
- Daniel Lakeland on Power analysis and NIH-style statistical practice: What’s the implicit model?

## Categories

So this is perhaps a good and hopefully effective first attempt at getting several of the ‘singularist notables’ to think a bit more objectively before they espouse words like ‘exponential technologies’ and the grand ‘abundance’ created by them for each man, woman, and child. Nevermind that technologic development operates within economic constraints, which do not to my knowledge improve exponentially over time. A proportion of the population will be the economic have nots, but that doesn’t give the technoluminaries a valid reason to ignore them any more than it is valid to overgeneralize technological reach to the haves.

So defining an entire population categorically by its technology is not only difficult to generalize, it assumes that the predominating technology of the time was indeed the radio, tv, internet, mobile phone, etc, while ignoring the the technologies that did things like ohhh, change longevity, reduce the incidence of disease, etc etc. (Yes, i include medical innovations as technologic as well (partciularly given each new method required to develop a pharmacotherapy or device).