Chance News 75: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 20: Line 20:
The earlier post also noted that Ariely has a new book, ''The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home''.  This was reviewed by  
The earlier post also noted that Ariely has a new book, ''The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home''.  This was reviewed by  
the ''New York Times'';  you can find a link to the review and read Ariely's reaction on his blog  
the ''New York Times'';  you can find a link to the review and read Ariely's reaction on his blog  
[http://danariely.com/2010/06/07/nyt-review-of-the-upside/ here].  He notes that that he had consciously adopted a more conversational style in the book, and that this had drawn some criticism from the ''Times''.  He invited readers to submit their own opinions on this.  Readers come down on both sides, and it is interesting to read the comments.  One statistically minded reader wrote
[http://danariely.com/2010/06/07/nyt-review-of-the-upside/ here].  He notes that that he had consciously adopted a more conversational style in the book, and that this had drawn some criticism from the ''Times''.  He invited readers to submit their own opinions on this.  Readers come down on both sides, and it is interesting to read the comments.  One statistically minded reader wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Of course your [sic] irrationally asking for personal thoughts in comments instead of a (slightly) more accurate poll or a (very) accurate scientific survey.
Of course your [sic] irrationally asking for personal thoughts in comments instead of a (slightly) more accurate poll or a (very) accurate scientific survey.

Revision as of 14:15, 8 July 2011

Quotations

Forsooth

Discussion of Ariely

A post in Chance News 74 described Paul Ariely's 2008 book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions as a great summer read [1], while pointing out that it was not written as an academic work. Paul Alper wrote to say that he had occasion to review the book in the context of some related work, and had identified some statistical concerns. As Paul writes:

Ariely enjoys concocting experiments to demonstrate the irrationality. For example, he finds that satisfaction with a product depends on the price paid for the product--for example Bayer aspirin vs. the identical generic. Or, the enticing but utterly misleading “Free gift” will alter a decision. Reviewers loved his book. Nonetheless, there are some serious shortcomings.

  • He invariably gives the average value of one group (e.g., satisfaction of Bayer aspirin users) compared to the other group (e.g., satisfaction of generic aspirin users) but he almost never indicates the variability. Averages alone are meaningless.
  • Almost never does he state how many subjects are involved in each arm of a study.
  • Almost all of his samples are convenience ones, rather than random samples.
  • Almost all of his samples are MIT students, but his implicit inference is to the world at large.
  • His examples of predictable irrationality appear unfailingly successful leading me to suspect a “file-drawer” issue--experiments which showed nothing in particular or the negative of what he theorizes, are put aside and not counted.

The earlier post also noted that Ariely has a new book, The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home. This was reviewed by the New York Times; you can find a link to the review and read Ariely's reaction on his blog here. He notes that that he had consciously adopted a more conversational style in the book, and that this had drawn some criticism from the Times. He invited readers to submit their own opinions on this. Readers come down on both sides, and it is interesting to read the comments. One statistically minded reader wrote:

Of course your [sic] irrationally asking for personal thoughts in comments instead of a (slightly) more accurate poll or a (very) accurate scientific survey.

Submitted by Bill Peterson, based on a message from Paul Alper

Item 2