Andrew Gelman is Professor of statistics and political science at Columbia Uni., the guy who tells the other social scientists how to get their numbers right so they can at least give the appearance of being a science. He has a very tart tongue which, combined with a high level intellect is fun to watch taking on sacred cows and shibboleths. As long as you aren't the target of said intellect and/or sharp tongue.
Here he is looking at Cass Sunstein as Sunstein's new book rolls out.
From Statistical Modeling, Causal Interference, and Social Science, February 7:
Nudgelords: Given their past track record, why should I trust them this time? (Don’t call me Stasi)
An economist who wants to remain nameless sent me an email with subject line Hilarious and with the following text:
https://www.amazon.com/Averting-Catastrophe-Decision-Potential-Disasters/dp/1479808482
The link is to a listing for a forthcoming book, Averting Catastrophe: Decision Theory for COVID-19, Climate Change, and Potential Disasters of All Kinds, by Cass R. Sunstein. The book “explores how governments ought to make decisions in times of imminent disaster.”
OK, fine. So what’s Sunstein’s record on giving advice so far?
“The state of New York, with help from Cornell’s Brian Wansink, puts nudge principles to work in its cafeterias. . . . The U.S. Department of Agriculture is planning to award $2 million in research grants for federal food policy inspired by behavioral economics.”
Actually, no, it seems that Wansink faked the data. But, hey, nudges!
“Knowing a person’s political leanings should not affect your assessment of how good a doctor she is — or whether she is likely to be a good accountant or a talented architect. But in practice, does it? Recently we conducted an experiment to answer that question. Our study . . . found that knowing about people’s political beliefs did interfere with the ability to assess those people’s expertise in other, unrelated domains.”
Actually, no, their study said nothing at all about doctors, accountants, or architects. They just made that part up to make it sound more relevant.
“Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death. . . . The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs involved in capital punishment may depend on cognitive processes that fail to treat ‘statistical lives’ with the seriousness that they deserve.”
Actually, no, the data don’t show that each execution prevents eighteen murders (or, as Sunstein and his collaborator charmingly put it, “as many as eighteen or more”). But, hey, anyone who disagrees with him must just be failing in their “cognitive processes.”
“Candidate for coolest behavioral finding of 2019: If a calorie label is on the left of the relevant food item, it has a much bigger impact than if it is on the right.”....
....MUCH MORE
