A few papers of mine have been recently accepted for publication. I plan to blog each of these individually but in the meantime here are some links:
Review of The Search for Certainty, by Krzysztof Burdzy. Bayesian Analysis. (Andrew Gelman)
Inference from simulations and monitoring convergence. In Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, ed. S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X. L. Meng. CRC Press. (Andrew Gelman and Kenneth Shirley)
Public opinion on health care reform. The Forum. (Andrew Gelman, Daniel Lee, and Yair Ghitza)
A snapshot of the 2008 election. Statistics, Politics and Policy. (Andrew Gelman, Daniel Lee, and Yair Ghitza)
Bayesian combination of state polls and election forecasts. Political Analysis. (Kari Lock and Andrew Gelman)
Causality and statistical learning. American Journal of Sociology. (Andrew Gelman)
Can fractals be used to predict human history? Review of Bursts, by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. Physics Today. (Andrew Gelman)
Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust. American Journal of Sociology. (Thomas A. DiPrete, Andrew Gelman, Tyler McCormick, Julien Teitler, and Tian Zheng)
It's nice to see –in the health care piece– the continued use of those national color-coded polling graphs from Red State Blue State. I wind up emailing them (as images) to friends and parents, largely to counteract the same old "this legislation is opposed by those for whom it's intended" story that everyone seems to believe.
There is an option to tag these blogs as a 'research blogging' to differentiate them from more casual conversations.
http://www.researchblogging.org/static/index/page…
i am not affiliated with this website.
That's a lot of writing.
It's somewhat ironic that one of the themes of your political writing (and research) is debunking the false impression that the Democratic Party is full of rich "elites" and the Republicans are the "working class", and yet you say in a recent article "why do many poor people vote for Republicans and rich people vote for Democrats…" Yes, I know that "many" poor people do vote for Republicans — just not a majority of them — but I still can't fathom why you didn't reverse this example, and even replace the manys with mosts. You've chosen to reinforce the same misimpression that you elsewhere rail against!
Phil: Where did I say that? Maybe it was a mistake.
the efficiency of andrew.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/ar…
Andrew,
The quote is from point 2 on the first page of Causality and Statistical Learning.
A dizzying amount of output, given that you also produce this blog. We the readers, of course, are the happy beneficiaries, and are lucky to have you!
“It is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of
healthcare reform—the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the
road to a police state—are often the ones it seems designed to help.”
Striking indeed—but not supported by the evidence we have seen.5 Low-income
people are less likely to have insurance, and younger people are not covered by
Medicare. In the most direct sense, legislation to cover the uninsured would thus
benefit young, poor Americans, and these are exactly the people who most
support federal intervention.
This sort of earnest but misinformed
In your paper you have this quote…
“It is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform—the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state—are often the ones it seems designed to help.”
And I still interpret the "most opposed" as highest degree of opposition rather than group with the highest proportion of opposition.
You go on to say…
Striking indeed—but not supported by the evidence we have seen. Low-income people are less likely to have insurance, and younger people are not covered by Medicare. In the most direct sense, legislation to cover the uninsured would thus benefit young, poor Americans, and these are exactly the people who most support federal intervention.
This sort of earnest but misinformed …
Actually, what we have seen in New Zealand, is that people with private health insurance get more from the government-run health system then people without private health insurance. If the results transfer across countries, all those rich, white men (who have private insurance) complaining about paying for a govt system will actually get more out of a govt run system than others.
Megan, I don't think the situations are comparable. In somewhere like NZ where the bulk of health care is provided free to the patient by public hospitals, the advantage of having insurance is often in seeing a (private) specialist early and so getting scheduled directly to surgery or whatever is necessary in the public system more quickly — it's queue jumping, so those people end up using more public services. In the US system, all providers bill the patient or insurance company and without paying, you get very little. Thus the cost to the govt is in providing the insurance rather than the services.
No doubt, your American rich white men would find a way to rort the system, but it would probably be a different scam from the NZ one….