A message from the vice chairman of surgery at Columbia University: “Garcinia Camboja. It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.”

Should Columbia University fire this guy just cos he says things like this: “You may think magic is make believe but this little bean has scientists saying they’ve found the magic weight loss cure for every body type—it’s green coffee … Continue reading

My proposal for making college admissions fairer

After reading the Rewarding Strivers book, I had some thoughts about how to make the college admissions system more fair to students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds. Instead of boosting up the disadvantaged students, why not pull down the advantaged students?

Here’s the idea. Disadvantaged students are defined typically not by a bad thing that they have, but rather by good things that they don’t have: financial resources, a high-quality education, and so forth. In contrast, advantaged students get all sorts of freebies. So here are my suggestions: Continue reading

Will people really donate $200 after buying a $300 air conditioner?

Robert Frank defends carbon offsets at the sister blog. I’m sympathetic to much of Frank’s argument; in particular, the fact that Al Gore has a big house isn’t much of an argument against carbon offsets. (If the crops are failing and the flood waters are rising, it won’t be much help to stand on a street corner shouting: But Al Gore had a big house!)

But I’m not happy with the example that Frank chooses to illustrate his point. He writes: Continue reading

Post-World War II cooling a mirage

Mark Levy pointed me to this. I don’t know anything about this area of research, but if true, it’s just an amazing, amazing example of the importance of measurement error:

The 20th century warming trend is not a linear affair. The iconic climate curve, a combination of observed land and ocean temperatures, has quite a few ups and downs, most of which climate scientists can easily associate with natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions or El Nino events.

But one such peak has confused them a hell of a lot. The sharp drop in 1945 by around 0.3 °C – no less than 40% of the century-long upward trend in global mean temperature – seemed inexplicable. There was no major eruption at the time, nor is anything known of a massive El Nino that could have caused the abrupt drop in sea surface temperatures. The nuclear explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have had little effect on global mean temperature. Besides, the drop is only apparent in ocean data, but not in land measurements.

nature06982-f3.2.jpg

Now scientists have found – not without relief – that they have been fooled by a mirage.

Continue reading

Debate over effect of reduced prosecutions on urban homicides; also larger questions about synthetic control methods in causal inference.

Andy Wheeler writes: I think this back and forth may be of interest to you and your readers. There was a published paper attributing very large increases in homicides in Philadelphia to the policies by progressive prosecutor Larry Krasner (+70 … Continue reading

They came in through the window: The migration of tech hype from the fringes to the media and academic mainstream

Palko points to a ten-year-old post on 3-D printing. Here he is back in 2013: We’re talking about people (particularly journalists) who have an emotional, gee-whiz reaction to technology without really thinking seriously about the functionality. [They] can be spotted … Continue reading

The real problem of that nudge meta-analysis is not that it includes 12 papers by noted fraudsters; it’s the GIGO of it all

A few days ago we discussed a meta-analysis that was published on nudge interventions. The most obvious problem of that analysis was that included 11 papers by Brian Wansink and 1 paper by Dan Ariely, and for good reasons we … Continue reading

PNAS GIGO QRP WTF: This meta-analysis of nudge experiments is approaching the platonic ideal of junk science

Nick Brown writes: You might enjoy this… Some researchers managed to include 11 articles by Wansink, including the “bottomless soup” study, in a meta-analysis in PPNAS. Nick links to this post from Aaron Charlton which provides further details. The article … Continue reading

Wow, just wow. If you think Psychological Science was bad in the 2010-2015 era, you can’t imagine how bad it was back in 1999

Shane Frederick points us to this article from 1999, “Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance,” about which he writes: This is one of the worst papers ever published in Psych Science (which is a big claim, I … Continue reading