Skip to content
Archive of posts filed under the Decision Theory category.

Humility needed in decision-making

Brian MacGillivray and Nick Pidgeon write: Daniel Gilbert maintains that people generally make bad decisions on risk issues, and suggests that communication strategies and education programmes would help (Nature 474, 275–277; 2011). This version of the deficit model pervades policy-making and branches of the social sciences. In this model, conflicts between expert and public perceptions […]

On deck this week

Mon: God is in every leaf of every probability puzzle Tues: Where does Mister P draw the line? Wed: Recently in the sister blog Thurs: Humility needed in decision-making Fri: “Why should anyone believe that? Why does it make sense to model a series of astronomical events as though they were spins of a roulette […]

On deck this week

Mon: Hey, what’s up with that x-axis?? Tues: A question about race based stratification Wed: Our new column in the Daily Beast Thurs: Irwin Shaw: “I might mistrust intellectuals, but I’d mistrust nonintellectuals even more.” Fri: An amusing window into folk genetics Sat: “Faith means belief in something concerning which doubt is theoretically possible.” — […]

“When more data steer us wrong: replications with the wrong dependent measure perpetuate erroneous conclusions”

Evan Heit sent in this article with Caren Rotello and Chad Dubé: There is a replication crisis in science, to which psychological research has not been immune: Many effects have proven uncomfortably difficult to reproduce. Although the reliability of data is a serious concern, we argue that there is a deeper and more insidious problem […]

In which a complete stranger offers me a bet

Piotr Mitros wrote to Deb and me: I read, with pleasure, your article about the impossibility of biasing a coin. I’m curious as to whether researchers believe what they write. Would you be willing to place some form of iterated bet? For example: I provide a two-sided coin and a table. The table looks like […]

Born-open data

Jeff Rouder writes: Although many researchers agree that scientific data should be open to scrutiny to ferret out poor analyses and outright fraud, most raw data sets are not available on demand. There are many reasons researchers do not open their data, and one is technical. It is often time consuming to prepare and archive […]

On deck this week

Mon: Because there is no observable certainty other than the existence of thought Tues: Michael LaCour in 20 years Wed: Born-open data Thurs: You can crush us, you can bruise us, yes, even shoot us, but oh—not a pie chart! Fri: In which a complete stranger offers me a bet Sat: Statistics Be Sun: “When […]

“The psychologists are getting a hard time for doing what they do, whereas people doing real harm to society are happily roaming around like free range chicken”

Shravan Vasishth writes: At least people like Amy Cuddy are just doing bullshit research that’s harmless (after all, raising your arms up high before an interview is unlikely to hurt society much). But check out this MIT “Professor” explaining the “statistically significant” autism-vaccine “connection”: She even takes a notorious, fraudulent, and retracted Lancet article as […]

On deck this week

Mon: “The psychologists are getting a hard time for doing what they do, whereas people doing real harm to society are happily roaming around like free range chicken” Tues: The posterior distribution of the likelihood ratio as a summary of evidence Wed: “Best Linear Unbiased Prediction” is exactly like the Holy Roman Empire Thurs: Applied […]

Should you get the blood transfusion?

Gur Huberman writes: Apropos Ethics & Logistic Regression, the piece you wrote with Madigan: In late 2001 I [Gur] broke my femur trying to rollerblade with my daughter. (No IQ award for that.) I had surgery and my recovery was slow. Every time I tried to get on crutches I’d collapse and faint. Diagnosis: Anemia. […]