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

On deck this week

Mon: All that really important statistics stuff that isn’t in the statistics textbooks Tues: Who marries whom? Wed: Gray graphs look pretty Thurs: Freak Punts on Leicester Bet Fri: Who falls for the education reform hype? Sat: Taking responsibility for your statistical conclusions: You must decide what variation to compare to. Sun: Researchers demonstrate new […]

On deck this week

Mon: Splitsville for Thiel and Kasparov? Tues: Here’s something I know nothing about Wed: The “power pose” of the 6th century B.C. Thurs: “99.60% for women and 99.58% for men, P < 0.05.” Fri: Stan on the beach Sat: Michael Lacour vs John Bargh and Amy Cuddy Sun: Should he major in political science and […]

Is fraac Scott Adams?

tl;dr: If you value your time, don’t read this post.

On deck this week

Birthdays, baseball, zombies, luxury . . . and fraac!

Peer review abuse flashback

Our recent discussion of the problems with peer review reminded me of this amusing/horrifying story from a few years ago, when some researchers noticed a data coding error in a published paper Once it was noticed, the error was obvious: But the authors of the original paper had that never-back-down attitude. So instead of thanking […]

Big Belly Roti on Amsterdam Ave and 123 St

Josh “hot hand” Miller was in town and a bunch of us went to this new Caribbean place around the corner. It was good! P.S. The other hot hand guy, Sanjurjo, is not in town.

On deck this week

Mon: Bill James does model checking Tues: What’s the motivation to do experiments on motivation? Wed: Happy talk, meet the Edlin factor Thurs: FDA approval of generic drugs: The untold story Fri: Acupuncture paradox update Sat: Point summary of posterior simulations? Sun: Peer review abuse flashback

Math on a plane!

Paul Alper pointed me to this news article about an economist who got BUSTED for doing algebra on the plane. This dude was profiled by the lady sitting next to him who got suspicious of his incomprehensible formulas. I feel that way about a lot of econ research too, so I can see where she […]

Doing data science

Someone sent me this question: As a social and political science expert, you analyze data related to everything from public health and clinical research to college football. Considering how adaptable analytics expertise is, what kinds of careers available to one with this skillset? In which industries are data scientists and analysts in particularly demand? What […]

The Puzzle of Paul Meehl: An intellectual history of research criticism in psychology

There’s nothing wrong with Meehl. He’s great. The puzzle of Paul Meehl is that everything we’re saying now, all this stuff about the problems with Psychological Science and PPNAS and Ted talks and all that, Paul Meehl was saying 50 years ago. And it was no secret. So how is it that all this was […]

On deck this week

Mon: Are you pro or anti-biotics? Tues: “Null hypothesis” = “A specific random number generator” Wed: No guarantee Thurs: The Puzzle of Paul Meehl: An intellectual history of research criticism in psychology Fri: Redemption Sat: Doing data science Sun: Will transparency damage science?

On deck this week

Mon: I owe it all to my Neanderthal genes Tues: If Yogi Berra could see this one, he’d spin in his grave: Regression modeling using a convenience sample Wed: 64 Shades of Gray: The subtle effect of chessboard images on foreign policy polarization Thurs: Integrating graphs into your workflow Fri: Gary Venter’s age-period-cohort decomposition of […]

Risk aversion is a two-way street

“Risk aversion” comes up a lot in microeconomics, but I think that it’s too broad a concept to do much for us. In many many cases, it seems to me that, when there is a decision option, either behavior X or behavior not-X can be thought as risk averse, depending on the framing. Thus, when […]

“Cancer Research Is Broken”

Michael Oakes pointed me to this excellent news article by Daniel Engber, subtitled, “There’s a replication crisis in biomedicine—and no one even knows how deep it runs.” Engber suggests that the replication problem in biomedical research is worse than the much-publicized replication problem in psychology. One reason, which I didn’t see Engber discussing, is financial […]

On deck this week

Mon: DG XXXVII: Lumosity fined $2 million for deceiving customers about its “brain training” programs Tues: “if you add a few more variables, you can do a better job at predictions” Wed: Stochastic natural-gradient EP Thurs: A new idea for a science core course based entirely on computer simulation Fri: Oooh, it burns me up […]

Avoiding model selection in Bayesian social research

The other day I happened to come across this paper that I wrote with Don Rubin in 1995. I really like it—it’s so judicious and mature, I can’t believe I wrote it over 20 years ago! Let this be a lesson to all of you that it’s possible to get somewhere by reasoning from first […]

Bayesian Umpires: The coolest sports-statistics idea since the hot hand!

Hiro Minato points us to this recent article by Guy Molyneux: Baseball fans have long known, or at least suspected, that umpires call balls and strikes differently as the count changes. At 0-2, it seems that almost any taken pitch that is not right down the middle will be called a ball, while at 3-0 […]

On deck this week

Mon: GIGO Tues: Why I’m skeptical of Fergus Simpson’s Big Alien Theory Wed: One more thing you don’t have to worry about Thurs: These Twin Names Match, But Aren’t “Matchy-Matchy” Fri: Put your own questions on the General Social Survey! Sat: Avoiding model selection in Bayesian social research Sun: A short answer to a short […]

Selection bias, or, some things are better off left unsaid

I got two of these in the same day! 1. A colleague emails me that a colleague emailed him regarding a study on women in the workplace. The headline conclusion is: “Corporate America is not on a path to gender equality.” My colleague’s colleague writes: This coincides with my prior beliefs, but for exactly that […]

“A strong anvil need not fear the hammer”

Wagenmakers et al. write: A single experiment cannot overturn a large body of work. . . . An empirical debate is best organized around a series of preregistered replications, and perhaps the authors whose work we did not replicate will feel inspired to conduct their own preregistered studies. In our opinion, science is best served […]