Gigerenzer has a very thorough knowledge of both H&B and statistics.
Thanks. Can you recommend of a short primer of his (like a summary article)?
I’ll also note that oftentimes you don’t need strong empirical data to know a bias exists. E.g., many people have anecdotal experience with the planning fallacy, and I doubt anyone would deny the existence of the anchoring effect once it’d been brought to their attention.
That anecdotal experience is quite easy to quantify. There’s a reason the word “experiment” and “experience” are so similar.
Often, though, I wish psychology just stopped using statistics, which sets up all kind of perverse incentives and methodological costs without adding much.
I think the problem is not statistics but bad statistics. If data sharing, replication, and transparency of methods all continue to increase, I do expect most of psychology’s current problems will be vastly mitigated. But, that’s not the world we live in today.
Thanks. Can you recommend of a short primer of his (like a summary article)?
Check out fastandfrugal.com. For critiques of Kahneman, I don’t think there’s a single summary, just Google Scholar Gigerenzer Kahneman.
If data sharing, replication, and transparency of methods all continue to increase, I do expect most of psychology’s current problems will be vastly mitigated.
Is blind application of data-mining packages increasing or staying constant at this point? If increasing, do the good trends outweigh it?
Is blind application of data-mining packages increasing or staying constant at this point? If increasing, do the good trends outweigh it?
What is it about the blind application of data-mining packages that is not-good? (If it works for achieving the goals of the user more effectively than whatever they were doing before then good for them!)
I can’t tell if you’re making a joke or arguing that hand-applied statistical practices of amateurs are actually worse for truth-seekers than automated data-mining.
Was going for “ask a question in the hope of getting a literal answer”.
I don’t have much information about when data mining packages are used, how effective they are for those uses or what folks would have done if they had not used them.
I see. I don’t have any good resources for you, sadly.
I was essentially asking for your pure opinion/best guess. ie. An unpacking of what I infer were opinions/premises implied by “[not] good”. Nevermind. I’ll take it to be approximately “blind application of data-mining packages is worse than useless and gives worse outcomes than whatever they would or wouldn’t have done if they didn’t have the package”.
Sorry, I just don’t have a strong opinion. It’s hard for me to consider the counterfactual, because there’s lots of selection effects on what studies I see both from the present time and the time before software data-miners were popular.
Is blind application of data-mining packages increasing or staying constant at this point? If increasing, do the good trends outweigh it?
Good question and really hard to tell. Certainly it happens now! But I bet it happened in the past too. Whether data-sharing standards in publications has been rising is something that is observable (i.e., people saying what they did to the data), and I’d be willing to bet on it empirically getting better.
Thanks. Can you recommend of a short primer of his (like a summary article)?
That anecdotal experience is quite easy to quantify. There’s a reason the word “experiment” and “experience” are so similar.
I think the problem is not statistics but bad statistics. If data sharing, replication, and transparency of methods all continue to increase, I do expect most of psychology’s current problems will be vastly mitigated. But, that’s not the world we live in today.
Check out fastandfrugal.com. For critiques of Kahneman, I don’t think there’s a single summary, just Google Scholar Gigerenzer Kahneman.
Is blind application of data-mining packages increasing or staying constant at this point? If increasing, do the good trends outweigh it?
What is it about the blind application of data-mining packages that is not-good? (If it works for achieving the goals of the user more effectively than whatever they were doing before then good for them!)
I can’t tell if you’re making a joke or arguing that hand-applied statistical practices of amateurs are actually worse for truth-seekers than automated data-mining.
Was going for “ask a question in the hope of getting a literal answer”.
I don’t have much information about when data mining packages are used, how effective they are for those uses or what folks would have done if they had not used them.
I see. I don’t have any good resources for you, sadly. I’d ask gwern.
I was essentially asking for your pure opinion/best guess. ie. An unpacking of what I infer were opinions/premises implied by “[not] good”. Nevermind. I’ll take it to be approximately “blind application of data-mining packages is worse than useless and gives worse outcomes than whatever they would or wouldn’t have done if they didn’t have the package”.
Sorry, I just don’t have a strong opinion. It’s hard for me to consider the counterfactual, because there’s lots of selection effects on what studies I see both from the present time and the time before software data-miners were popular.
Good question and really hard to tell. Certainly it happens now! But I bet it happened in the past too. Whether data-sharing standards in publications has been rising is something that is observable (i.e., people saying what they did to the data), and I’d be willing to bet on it empirically getting better.