I think there are some nice people who are legitimately puzzled why someone like me writes negative blog posts. I can do whatever I want, I have all these fun collaborators and cool research projects, so I think these people wonder why I’d spend any of my time writing about stuff I don’t like. I’m guessing it baffles them. It would be as if I lived next door to the Louvre but instead of going every day to see the pretty paintings, I went to some ugly part of the city, stared at some wreckage, and then blogged about how ugly it all is. Why would anyone choose to do that?
Or, for a slightly different analogy, it’s like I have season tickets to every NBA team but instead I go into some smelly gym and watch some bad high school basketball games—and then blog about how bad they are! If I actually enjoyed high school basketball that would be one thing, but if I hate it, why not just avert my eyes? My response is that bad statistics bothers me, especially if it’s given the imprimateur of renowned scientists from renowned institutions. And I do get angry about all the good work that is then not published or not promoted because it gets crowded out on NPR and Ted by this sort of thing. The Gresham-like selection bias whereby the crap floats to the top. I guess the analogy would be that I feel bad for the kids who get cut from their high school teams in favor of flashy players who big talkers but who can’t score, pass, or rebound. Or maybe in this case it would be baseball players who can’t play basketball but insist on hogging the court time cos it’s not enuf for them to play baseball, they want to be on TV during basketball season too.
We think about ugly things because we want to change the world to be more beautiful.
But what are the negative side effects of writing negative posts? This blog post, itself, implies that it must be significant enough for you to address publicly.
Sam:
The negative side effects are what is mentioned in the above post: the opportunity cost of thinking and writing about ugliness rather than beauty.
Oh, okay. (I thought it was negative reactions from those in the media who you’re criticizing.)
Sam:
No, that’s the reward.
My father was a physician, and I grew up with the idea that professions were supposed to be self-regulating, because lay people didn’t have the knowledge to judge professional activities properly. Thus, the Law Library (https://thelawdictionary.org/professional/) defines a professional as follows:
“1. A person, who is a member of a professional body due to the education qualification and follows the prescribed moral and professional code of conduct. 2. A person who has mastered a high level of expertise in a subject, notion on field.”
Calling out bad statistics seems like trying to promote professional standards of conduct. The problem is that more people don’t do it.
John Williams said, “Calling out bad statistics seems like trying to promote professional standards of conduct. The problem is that more people don’t do it.”
+1
Your blog posts are not uniquely negative in comparison to the casual conversations that I have observe. Many experts are frustrated with the status quo & are divided within their respective fields, in many ways. But the blog posts here are more entertaining and substantive. They reflect nearing an end of an era intellectually.
At a time when censorship is in force in some scientific circles, there is an exigent need to stand up to it. Tenured academics have more latitude to say what they want. Whether their views are shared sufficiently with the public is another question. I suppose social media has expanded audience reach in some fields more than others. International relations field in some respects has benefited. Pew Research surveys suggest otherwise. People tend to align with like minded colleagues, friends, and ideologues.
Moreover, the hyper-competition for grants and positions is a large factor why some of the crises in academia have been unfolding. Add to it the fact that, on average, only about 11 % constitutes tenured faculty. I recall when the brouhaha over university tenure and promotions burgeoned in the 70s. Maybe there are far too many researchers in some fields.
Sameera said, “Tenured academics have more latitude to say what they want. ”
Retired academics have even more latitude to say what they want. ; >)
Martha,
I can see that. Retired academic audience reach may be limited in some fields and contexts. Then again, some investigative journalists have continued to note that their investigative efforts are not financially viable. Here retired academics have filled a gap as they are less financial vulnerable.
You do not write excessively negative blog posts! Everyone loves a whistle blower. Well, maybe not everyone. I do. I do due diligence. Your blog posts protect people from bad things by spreading light and truth. You are a hero. Keep up the good work.
I miss your old blog theme. WordPress is doing horrible no code things to blogs, which is very sad.
Yeah, you should really make sure you hit that critical positivity ratio! :D
But seriously, your negative posts are often the most valuable ones. And there are too few people to call out BS, especially by high profile people. So you’re doing a very valuable service to science!
There’s a saying in the civil engineering profession along the lines of “the science of engineering advances from one disaster to the next.” I don’t know where I heard this (probably a book by Petroski), but it was in reference to bridges that collapsed and the subsequent analyses of what went wrong.
You’ve written something negative?
The truth hurts at times. I have been reading your blog for years. I have learned a great deal by reading your entries and the comments. I really like your willingness to tell things as they are. I wish more people had the guts to do so. I do it. I have also admitted to mistakes in statistical applications and reasoning in my own work. You have done the same on this blog; though, your mistakes are far fewer and on a level of complexity I will never understand.
I also like your comical demeanor in delivering bad news. I have watched, for example, your Columbia lecture on the statistical crisis in science many times because I have had my students (undergraduate and graduate) watch it. Your delivery of the line in that lecture about how “terrible” it would be to tell people not to eat onions is hilarious.
Many end users of statistics are deluded about their abilities particularly in academia. I was and I am always checking myself (as in “check yo’ self before you wreck yo’ self” – from one of your blog entries). In my case, it has resulted in me slowing down and contemplating more deeply why I am doing something more so than how I ought to proceed.
I am amazed at people who have risen to “distinguished” status in some cases on account of their ability to rapidly and repeatedly generate statistical nonsense. It is like some statistical mold that they pour their batter into over and over. Misuses need to be called out. Calling out folks can be perceived negatively, of course; I see it as illuminating the darkness.
You’re doing important work. I worry that we are in danger of losing sight of what real science is and why it has worked so well up to now. We could up up with a future in which only the form, but not the substance, of science remains.
For a sobering look at what can happen, how advances can be lost and forgotten, take a look at this book: The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why it Had to Be Reborn. https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Revolution-Science-Born-Reborn/dp/3540203966.