Skip to content
Archive of entries posted by

Stock, flow, and two smoking regressions

In a comment on our recent discussion of stock and flow, Tom Fiddaman writes: Here’s an egregious example of statistical stock-flow confusion that got published. Fiddaman is pointing to a post of his from 2011 discussing a paper that “examines the relationship between CO2 concentration and flooding in the US, and finds no significant impact.” […]

An inundation of significance tests

Jan Vanhove writes: The last three research papers I’ve read contained 51, 49 and 70 significance tests (counting conservatively), and to the extent that I’m able to see the forest for the trees, mostly poorly motivated ones. I wonder what the motivation behind this deluge of tests is. Is it wanton obfuscation (seems unlikely), a […]

On deck this week

Mon: An inundation of significance tests Tues: Stock, flow, and two smoking regressions Wed: What’s the worst joke you’ve ever heard? Thurs: Cracked.com > Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times Fri: Measurement is part of design Sat: “17 Baby Names You Didn’t Know Were Totally Made Up” Sun: What to do to train […]

Chess + statistics + plagiarism, again!

In response to this post (in which I noted that the Elo chess rating system is a static model which, paradoxically, is used to for the purposes of studying changes), Keith Knight writes: It’s notable that Glickman’s work is related to some research by Harry Joe at UBC, which in turn was inspired by data […]

Kaiser’s beef

The Numbersense guy writes in: Have you seen this? It has one of your pet peeves… let’s draw some data-driven line in the categorical variable and show significance. To make it worse, he adds a final paragraph saying essentially this is just a silly exercise that I hastily put together and don’t take it seriously! […]

John Lott as possible template for future career of “Bruno” Lacour

The recent story about the retracted paper on political persuasion reminded me of the last time that a politically loaded survey was discredited because the researcher couldn’t come up with the data. I’m referring to John Lott, the “economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate” (in the words of Wikipedia) who is perhaps more well […]

Creativity is the ability to see relationships where none exist

Brent Goldfarb and Andrew King, in a paper to appear in the journal Strategic Management, write: In a recent issue of this journal, Bettis (2012) reports a conversation with a graduate student who forthrightly announced that he had been trained by faculty to “search for asterisks”. The student explained that he sifted through large databases […]

Weggy update: it just gets sadder and sadder

Uh oh, lots on research misconduct lately. Newest news is that noted Wikipedia-lifter Ed Wegman sued John Mashey, one of his critics, for $2 million dollars. Then he backed down and decided not to sue after all. Best quote from Mashey’s write-up: None of this made any sense to me, but then I am no […]

Can talk therapy halve the rate of cancer recurrence? How to think about the statistical significance of this finding? Is it just another example of the garden of forking paths?

James Coyne (who we last encountered in the sad story of Ellen Langer) writes: I’m writing to you now about another matter about which I hope you will offer an opinion. Here is a critique of a study, as well as the original study that claimed to find an effect of group psychotherapy on time […]

BREAKING . . . Princeton decides to un-hire Kim Jong-Un for tenure-track assistant professorship in aeronautical engineering

Full story here. Here’s the official quote: As you’ve correctly noted, at this time the individual is not a Princeton University employee. We will review all available information and determine next steps. And here’s what Kim has to say: I’m gathering evidence and relevant information so I can provide a single comprehensive response. I will […]