Skip to content
Archive of posts filed under the Sociology category.

Parking lot statistics—a story in three parts

Part 1: Here’s a 1993 article from the American Sociological Review in which church attendance was measured by the number of cars in the parking lot (link from here). Part 2: In 2005 or 2006, an economist who does statistics reportedly tries to run over a sociologist who does statistics in a parking lot (but […]

bla bla bla PEER REVIEW bla bla bla

OK, I’ve been saying this over the phone to a bunch of journalists during the past month so I might as well share it with all of you . . . 1. The peers . . . The problem with peer review is the peers. Who are “the peers” of four M.D.’s writing up an […]

Why X’s think they’re the best

Commenter Alex pointed out this excellent post, Why Doctors Think They’re the Best, by Scott Alexander, who writes: Ninety percent of drivers think they’re above-average drivers, ninety percent of professors think they’re above-average professors etc. The relevant studies are paywalled, so I don’t know if I [Alexander] should trust them. . . . But I […]

The seventy two percent solution (to police violence)

And now it is your turn, We are tired of praying, and marching, and thinking, and learning —  Gil Scott-Heron So. It turns out that Gil Scott-Heron was right and he was wrong. We once again, during a time of serious social inequality and political upheaval, sent whiteys to the moon (ish). On the other hand, the […]

Thank you, James Watson. Thank you, Peter Ellis. (Lancet: You should do the right thing and credit them for your retraction. Actually, do one better and invite them to write a joint editorial in your journal.)

So, Lancet issued a retraction of that controversy hydro-oxy-choloro-supercalifragilisticexpialadocious paper. From three of the four authors of the now-retracted paper: After publication of our Lancet Article, several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. […]

Association for Psychological Science claims that they can “add our voice and expertise to bring about positive change and to stand against injustice and racism in all forms” . . . but I’m skeptical.

David Leonhardt writes: Close to 10 percent of black men in their 30s are behind bars on any given day, according to the Sentencing Project. . . . When the government last counted how many black men had ever spent time in state or federal prison — in 2001 — the share was 17 percent. […]

Statistical Workflow and the Fractal Nature of Scientific Revolutions (my talk this Wed at the Santa Fe Institute)

Wed 3 June 2020 at 12:15pm U.S. Mountain time: Statistical Workflow and the Fractal Nature of Scientific Revolutions How would an A.I. do statistics? Fitting a model is the easy part. The other steps of workflow—model building, checking, and revision—are not so clearly algorithmic. It could be fruitful to simultaneously think about automated inference and […]

This one’s for the Lancet editorial board: A trolley problem for our times (involving a plate of delicious cookies and a steaming pile of poop)

A trolley problem for our times OK, I couldn’t quite frame this one as a trolley problem—maybe those of you who are more philosophically adept than I am can do this—so I set it up as a cookie problem? Here it is: Suppose someone was to knock on your office door and use some mix […]

Association for Psychological Science takes a hard stand against criminal justice reform

Here’s the full quote, from an article to be published in one of our favorite academic journals: The prescriptive values of highly educated groups (such as secularism, but also libertarianism, criminal justice reform, and unrestricted sociosexuality, among others) may work for groups that are highly cognitively sophisticated and self-controlled, but they may be injurious to […]

The turtles stop here. Why we meta-science: a meta-meta-science manifesto

All those postscripts in the previous post . . . this sort of explanation of why I’m writing about the scientific process, it comes up a lot. I spend a lot of time thinking and writing about the research process, rather than just doing research. And all too often I often find myself taking time […]

“The good news about this episode is that it’s kinda shut up those people who were criticizing that Stanford antibody study because it was an un-peer-reviewed preprint. . . .” and a P.P.P.S. with Paul Alper’s line about the dead horse

People keep emailing me about this recently published paper, but I already said I’m not going to write about it. So I’ll mask the details. Philippe Lemoine writes: So far it seems you haven’t taken a close look at the paper yourself and I’m hoping that you will, because I’m curious to know what you […]

“The Moral Economy of Science”

In our discussion of Lorraine Daston’s “How Probabilities Came to Be Objective and Subjective,” commenter John Richters points to Daston’s 1995 article, “The Moral Economy of Science,” which is super-interesting and also something I’d never heard of before. I should really read the whole damn article and comment on everything in it, but for now […]

An open letter expressing concerns regarding the statistical analysis and data integrity of a recently published and publicized paper

James Watson prepared this open letter to **, **, **, and **, authors of ** and to ** (editor of **). The letter has approximately 96,032 signatures from approximately 6 continents. And I heard a rumor that they have contacts at the Antarctic Polar Station who are going to sign the thing once they can […]

Age-period-cohort analysis.

Chris Winship and Ethan Fosse write with a challenge: Since its beginnings nearly a century ago, Age-Period-Cohort analysis has been stymied by the lack of identification of parameter estimates resulting from the linear dependence between age, period, and cohort (age= period – cohort). In a series of articles, we [Winship and Fosse] have developed a […]

This controversial hydroxychloroquine paper: What’s Lancet gonna do about it?

Peer review is not a form of quality control In the past month there’s been a lot of discussion of the flawed Stanford study of coronavirus prevalence—it’s even hit the news—and one thing came up was that the article under discussion was just a preprint—it wasn’t even peer reviewed! For example, in a NYT op-ed: […]

Create your own community (if you need to)

Back in 1991 I went to a conference of Bayesians and I was disappointed that the vast majority seem to not be interested in checking their statistical models. The attitude seemed to be, first, that model checking was not possible in a Bayesian context, and, second, that model checking was illegitimate because models were subjective. […]

New report on coronavirus trends: “the epidemic is not under control in much of the US . . . factors modulating transmission such as rapid testing, contact tracing and behavioural precautions are crucial to offset the rise of transmission associated with loosening of social distancing . . .”

Juliette Unwin et al. write: We model the epidemics in the US at the state-level, using publicly available death data within a Bayesian hierarchical semi-mechanistic framework. For each state, we estimate the time-varying reproduction number (the average number of secondary infections caused by an infected person), the number of individuals that have been infected and […]

covidcp.org: A COVID-19 collaboration platform.

Following up on today’s post on design of studies for coronavirus treatments and vaccines, Z points to this site, which states: In the U.S. only a few COVID-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been centrally organized, e.g. by NIAID, PCORI and individual PIs. Over 400 such trials have been registered on clinicaltrials.gov with dozens being […]

Here’s what academic social, behavioral, and economic scientists should be working on right now.

In a recent comment thread on the lack of relevance of academic social and behavioral science to the current crisis, Terry writes: We face a once-in-a-lifetime event, and the existing literature gives mostly vapid-sounding guidance. Take this gem at the beginning of the article: One of the central emotional responses during a pandemic is fear. […]

Get your research project reviewed by The Red Team: this seems like a good idea!

Ruben Arslan writes: A colleague recently asked me to be a neutral arbiter on his Red Team challenge. He picked me because I was skeptical of his research plans at a conference and because I recently put out a bug bounty program for my blog, preprints, and publications (where people get paid if they find […]