. . . We really do have the best comment section on the internet.

Posted by Andrew on 6 November 2016, 8:44 pm

. . . We really do have the best comment section on the internet.

## Recent Comments

- Tim Morris on A heart full of hatred: 8 schools edition
- Daniel Lakeland on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Daniel Lakeland on The status-reversal heuristic
- Martha (Smith) on The status-reversal heuristic
- Chris c on The status-reversal heuristic
- NaN on The status-reversal heuristic
- Andrew on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Justin on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Dale Lehman on The status-reversal heuristic
- Andrew on The status-reversal heuristic
- Zad Chow on On the term “self-appointed” . . .
- Terry on The status-reversal heuristic
- Anoneuoid on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Anoneuoid on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Daniel Lakeland on The status-reversal heuristic
- Martha (Smith) on How to think scientifically about scientists’ proposals for fixing science
- Daniel Lakeland on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Martha (Smith) on The status-reversal heuristic
- Daniel Lakeland on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.
- Nick Adams on What’s the p-value good for: I answer some questions.

## Categories

Research has shown that it is good.

We reject at p less than .05 the null hypothesis that our comment section is identical to all other comment sections on the internet.

To be exact, at 0.0492.

Actually .052 but through opportunistic rounding we got it down below .05 where it belonged.

P.S. Yes this blog has the best overall comment section on the internet but this particular comment thread is pretty lame (for which I accept more than 50% of the responsibility).

There must be a name for this paradox: Somebody’s Law of the Internet: Once someone starts bragging online, the brag will inevitably nullify whatever is being bragged about.

I thought the No Trump reference was 0.2% less than lame (with a 95% confidence interval of 0.1 to 0.3).

In case anyone doesn’t know what I’m referring to, here it is (I was rereading it today and cachinnating):

http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2016/06/notrump_falk_gelman_icml.pdf

“When we look at the percentage of No Trump contracts made, the Vanderbilt 2015 tournament is significantly higher than the Vanderbilt 1999 tournament. The t-test yields a p-value of 0.0492, easily passing the traditional significance level of 5 percent.”

I thought the mention of this number would be Gladwellian in impact, but I don’t mind being wrong. I do sort of mind being correlated with lameness, though.

Diana:

Your comment was fine. I introduced the lameness with my followups.

I was thinking of suggesting a p.s. that many readers of this blog do not read the comments – but then this is unlikely the thread that would encourage any change in that ;-)

I participate in the best comment section on the internet! Woohoo! That’s going on my résumé.

Well, in the tradition of Stigler’s law of eponymy, here are some suggestions:

* Gelman’s law of commentary self-abrogation

* Gelmanic Reversion to the Mean

or my favorite

*Gelmanic Depression (of commentary hyperbole)

For what it’s worth, I’m not a statistician and this limits my ability to understand the more technical topics on this blog. The topics that I can follow are of interest, but one of the things that originally hooked me was the spectacle of people with strong opinions disagreeing with each other in civil fashion–on the Internet.

Also, this particular thread shouldn’t count against that appraisal. Someone once told me I received compliments gracefully and I was completely flummoxed.