Dan Goldstein

1,044 Followers
278 Following
153 Posts
Economics and Computational Social Science at Microsoft Research NYC.
Websitehttp://dangoldstein.com

Sam @sz and Dan @dggoldst are both here on Mastodon.

And they've developed fun interactive app that challenges you to interpret these types of data yourself. Even having read their paper and knowing damn well the mistake I'm likely to make, I still systematically overestimate the AOC. Very well worth a look.

https://sam.zhang.fyi/html/psup/index.html

What's the effect size?

I just read the best paper I've seen yet this year, Sam Zhang's work on confusion between inferential uncertainty and outcome variability.

In the context of a trial or experiment, inferential uncertainty refers to our statistical confidence that two groups are different. Outcome variability refers to how much variation there is in individual outcomes within a single group.

IMO confusion about this is ubiquitous in biomedical science.

Here's the paper: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/5tcgs/

@ct_bergstrom @sz @dggoldst glad you enjoyed our paper and thanks for spreading the gospel here.

great to see your existing examples of "show me the data" and hoping many others join the club!

(i knew having a mastodon account would come in handy some day :) )

Some kind "best paper I've seen this year" words from @ct_bergstrom
on our paper about the confusion between inferential uncertainty and outcome variability.

Working link to paper here: http://jakehofman.com/publication/illusion-of-predictability/

https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/110267907188002904

An illusion of predictability in scientific results | jakehofman.com

Traditionally, scientists have placed more emphasis on communicating inferential uncertainty (i.e., the precision of statistical estimates) compared to outcome variability (i.e., the predictability of individual outcomes). Here we show that this can lead to sizable misperceptions about the implications of scientific results. Specifically, we present three pre-registered, randomized experiments where participants saw the same scientific findings visualized as showing only inferential uncertainty, only outcome variability, or both, and answered questions about the size and importance of findings they were shown. Our results, comprised of responses from medical professionals, professional data scientists, and tenure-track faculty, show that the prevalent form of visualizing only inferential uncertainty can lead to significant overestimates of treatment effects, even among highly trained experts. In contrast, we find that depicting both inferential uncertainty and outcome variability leads to more accurate perceptions of results while appearing to leave other subjective impressions of the results unchanged, on average.

jakehofman.com

Some kind "best paper I've seen this year" words from @ct_bergstrom
on our paper about the confusion between inferential uncertainty and outcome variability.

Working link to paper here: http://jakehofman.com/publication/illusion-of-predictability/

https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/110267907188002904

An illusion of predictability in scientific results | jakehofman.com

Traditionally, scientists have placed more emphasis on communicating inferential uncertainty (i.e., the precision of statistical estimates) compared to outcome variability (i.e., the predictability of individual outcomes). Here we show that this can lead to sizable misperceptions about the implications of scientific results. Specifically, we present three pre-registered, randomized experiments where participants saw the same scientific findings visualized as showing only inferential uncertainty, only outcome variability, or both, and answered questions about the size and importance of findings they were shown. Our results, comprised of responses from medical professionals, professional data scientists, and tenure-track faculty, show that the prevalent form of visualizing only inferential uncertainty can lead to significant overestimates of treatment effects, even among highly trained experts. In contrast, we find that depicting both inferential uncertainty and outcome variability leads to more accurate perceptions of results while appearing to leave other subjective impressions of the results unchanged, on average.

jakehofman.com
Funny how the magnifying glass means "search for text" and the text means "change the magnification"

"I find that a duck's opinion of me is influenced by whether or not I have bread."

- Mitch Hedberg

CHI should go back to a single round of reviews (i. e., the pre 2022 system)
Agree
50%
Disagree
50%
Poll ended at .

Is it a causal effect?

Yes ->
Call it causal in the paper

No ->
Call it causal in the press release

I've noticed when people have last names that are common first names (or vice versa), other people often get it backwards.

I imagine this must cause administrative headaches and wonder what tactics people have come up with to prevent others from screwing up.