« Binge Reading Gelman | Main | The Facebook experiment controversy »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


When I read AG's original, I found the study report and I believe it was only a poster summary. I think those are meant more to tweak interest than to be definitive. My point is that this was a clearly limited effort and that the real problems, the real misleadings are in big studies with lots of charts and data appendices that hide what's really going on, what was left out, etc. These make the story telling much harder to unravel and they are more likely, I think, to become part of the continuing narrative.


jonathan: if you click to one of my two earlier posts on this topic, I have a link to the published paper. One of Gelman's readers found the paper while Andrew found the poster presentation. I'm glad we have both because the published paper only contains relative numbers-you can't find any absolute counts and so you can't judge what's in there.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Get new posts by email:
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR, Wired.

See my Youtube and Flickr.


  • only in Big Data
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here

Principal Analytics Prep

Link to Principal Analytics Prep