Now nonsense isn’t new to me . . . check out this new paper by Josh Miller and Adam Sanjurjo.

Posted by Andrew on 3 January 2016, 9:29 pm

Now nonsense isn’t new to me . . . check out this new paper by Josh Miller and Adam Sanjurjo.

## Recent Comments

- Anoneuoid on You need 16 times the sample size to estimate an interaction than to estimate a main effect
- Anonymous on Reasons for an optimistic take on science: there are not “growing problems with research and publication practices.” Rather, there have been, and continue to be, huge problems with research and publication practices, but we’ve made progress in recognizing these problems.
- Carlos Ungil on What is not but could be if
- cw on What is not but could be if
- Bob Carpenter on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Daniel Lakeland on Gaydar and the fallacy of objective measurement
- Xi'an on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Krzys on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Sameera Daniels on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Ayse Tezcan on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Joe on Gaydar and the fallacy of objective measurement
- curious about identification verbage on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Bob Loblaw on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Andrew on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Noah Motion on You need 16 times the sample size to estimate an interaction than to estimate a main effect
- Ayse Tezcan on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Anders on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Carlos Ungil on Gaydar and the fallacy of objective measurement
- Ayse Tezcan on What We Talk About When We Talk About Bias
- Sameera Daniels on You need 16 times the sample size to estimate an interaction than to estimate a main effect

## Categories

Checked this out already? Hot Hands, Streaks and Coin-flips: Numerical Nonsense in the New York Times

oh cool!

for those that are only interested in the connection to Monty Hall, we have an image that will save time: https://twitter.com/jben0/status/684187214931087360

Heads and tails aren’t quite as interesting as goats and cars, sorry for that, but if you go to Problem 11, we have goats on bicycles.

Hey, sneaking in REM references is my speciality, buddy!

Seriously, nice paper. I was pondering the other day how people who believe climate change is some kind of liberal conspiracy manage to switch from a Hot Hand bias into the exact opposite to fit their expectations. Cold hand? That’s to say, an absolute insistence that it is just noise and not signal, by appeal to longer timescales with larger changes (neglecting the additional improbability of a major shift in planetary climate just happening along at the exact moment they need it to foil those darn commies*). Anything but a balanced view that weird coincidences happen a certain amount – but not that much. It would be so much fun to do some empirical work on this sort of perception but it’s not my field.

* – notwithstanding supernatural intervention, of course

Nice catch Robert, Andrew’s post “Now nonsense isnâ€™t new to me” did feel a bit elusive.

What are the chances that he could find such an apt phrase within the lyrics of the “Monty” song? Will this work everytime? seems like it will.

anyhow, thanks for the nice words. I don’t have much to add on the reasoning you refer to, except to link this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning