I have to wonder about our profession when someone here argues that frequentist statistics 'does not accomodate latent DGPs.' Oh boy, LJL. That would be a serious limitation indeed, but then again, statistics is not very useful if you know the DGP already.
Datacolada: highly cited QJE paper falls apart when data is analyzed properly
-
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedback -
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackThey publish in QJE, they do not have to respond. That would actually be beyond their dignity to do that.
-
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackThey publish in QJE, they do not have to respond. That would actually be beyond their dignity to do that.
*beneath their dignity
-
It’s not everyday you can choose not to respond to someone with 3 Science articles under their belt
ed to our emails requesting feedback
They publish in QJE, they do not have to respond. That would actually be beyond their dignity to do that.
*beneath their dignity
Are you being sarcastic? -
It’s not everyday you can choose not to respond to someone with 3 Science articles under their belt
ed to our emails requesting feedback
They publish in QJE, they do not have to respond. That would actually be beyond their dignity to do that.
*beneath their dignity
Are you being sarcastic?
I guess there is a good reason for that. They have nothing so say to defend their results. Period.
-
If the DGP has fixed parameters, the only source of uncertainty is the sampling process. The uncertainty of that process reduces with your sample size (you will remember that CIs are a decreasing function of n). If your population has finite size N, then having a sample of size n=N eliminates sampling uncertainty entirely.
No.
You have an urn with 1,000 red or black balls. You draw a sample of n=1,000. What's the sampling error?
-
If the DGP has fixed parameters, the only source of uncertainty is the sampling process. The uncertainty of that process reduces with your sample size (you will remember that CIs are a decreasing function of n). If your population has finite size N, then having a sample of size n=N eliminates sampling uncertainty entirely.
No.
You have an urn with 1,000 red or black balls. You draw a sample of n=1,000. What's the sampling error?
Let me know where I account for population size in constructing standard errors.
-
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackI get he's trying to be funny, but it seems so unnecessary. He made his point, no need to try to ridicule the other person.
When I get these kinds of emails, I take them seriously, but the other side should know that I've other things going on in my life.
-
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackI get he's trying to be funny, but it seems so unnecessary. He made his point, no need to try to ridicule the other person.
When I get these kinds of emails, I take them seriously, but the other side should know that I've other things going on in my life."These kinds of emails" as in questions from random PhD students or <LRM faculty about your papers? Or questions from Datacolada-like blogs?
-
You have an urn with 1,000 red or black balls. You draw a sample of n=1,000. What's the sampling error?
Let me know where I account for population size in constructing standard errors.
Since you sold all your undergrad stats books, let me help you out:
https://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/11886/12171343/OnlineTopics/bbs12e_onlinetopic_ch07-6.pdfTake the limit of (7.10) of n→N and report back, will you?
-
Uri is a bit of a d1ck
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackI get he's trying to be funny, but it seems so unnecessary. He made his point, no need to try to ridicule the other person.
When I get these kinds of emails, I take them seriously, but the other side should know that I've other things going on in my life. -
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackI get he's trying to be funny, but it seems so unnecessary. He made his point, no need to try to ridicule the other person.
When I get these kinds of emails, I take them seriously, but the other side should know that I've other things going on in my life."These kinds of emails" as in questions from random PhD students or <LRM faculty about your papers? Or questions from Datacolada-like blogs?
I have not had requests from Datacolada-type sources. I have received things like people writing a response to my papers, and in this specific case the people were gracious enough to wait several months for a response (I just had a kid at the time). In any case, I don't see why Datacolada expects to receive an answer within a week from anybody.
Now, this shouldn't detract from the fact that projects like Datacolada are useful and we should encourage these kinds of things to improve the quality of research. But I was not impressed by their tone.
-
Answering within two weeks is basic professionalism.
This doesn’t mean necessarily sending a full response. But briefly saying “thanks for your email, but I just need more time” is not at all a burden on the authors if they want more time.
Acting as if it’s normal to out-of-the-blue respond to a two month old email is weird.
Check out the footnote lol
Author feedback
Our policy (.htm) is to share drafts of blog posts that discuss someone else's work with them, to solicit suggestions for things we should change prior to posting, and to invite a response that is linked to from the end of the post (i.e., from here). I shared a draft of this post with Alwyn Young on September 30th, and then sent a reminder on October 9th, but he has not yet replied to either message. We did exchange a few emails prior to that, starting with an email I sent on September 9th, 2021, but that discussion did not involve the HC1 vs HC3 issue. I should probably point out that we have had n=99 blog posts so far, and removing a single observation, 100% of authors have replied to our emails requesting feedbackI get he's trying to be funny, but it seems so unnecessary. He made his point, no need to try to ridicule the other person.
When I get these kinds of emails, I take them seriously, but the other side should know that I've other things going on in my life."These kinds of emails" as in questions from random PhD students or <LRM faculty about your papers? Or questions from Datacolada-like blogs?
I have not had requests from Datacolada-type sources. I have received things like people writing a response to my papers, and in this specific case the people were gracious enough to wait several months for a response (I just had a kid at the time). In any case, I don't see why Datacolada expects to receive an answer within a week from anybody.
Now, this shouldn't detract from the fact that projects like Datacolada are useful and we should encourage these kinds of things to improve the quality of research. But I was not impressed by their tone.