11 posts
Modern dating is full of choices, whether between strangers at a bar or profiles on OkCupid. With so many options, it’s important to be rigorous in your search for a statistically significant other. Here are some tips to help you correlate with others.
The other day, as I was sipping hot chocolate and talking with my college friend Cora about the play Copenhagen*, I had a thought:
A paper and associated web-based tool have been proposed to detect publication bias and p-hacking in the literature. From the paper:
An interesting article from Accident Analysis and Prevention from 2004 goes over three case studies where Null Hypothesis Significance Testing may have cost lives.
Found this interesting paper from a couple years ago: Detecting and Correcting the Lies that Data Tellby F Schmidt.
A brief comment points out a major flaw in a published study, in part by using simulations:
I found this 2004 article through the footnotes of Nate Silver’s book. Here are the highlights (but I recommend reading it all the way through.)
Vaughn Bell of Mind Hacks interviews researchers about the problems with fMRI:
Dorothy Bishop critiques a 2003 neuroimaging paper:
A pair of articles in Infection and Immunity. In addition to summarizing problems, they offer the following reforms (all greatly abridged in the excerpts below):
Journal Disavows Study Touted By Abortion Foes