tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post734135573749482897..comments2024-03-26T19:10:00.791-04:00Comments on West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more): Andrew Gelman forces me to read Bob SomerbyJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-86060016989864618602012-09-14T15:27:08.219-04:002012-09-14T15:27:08.219-04:00Robert,
I think you might be focusing more on An...Robert, <br /><br />I think you might be focusing more on Andrew's original post rather than the post-script that I was discussing. <br /><br />In the PPPS, Andrew concedes that there's evidence of bias but wondered if personal distaste could trump partisanship. My point was given the situation and the reinforcing mechanisms in place, intense bias was likely. Furthermore, what we observed closely matched what the theory predicted.<br /><br />The bigger story here is that, as journalistic standards decline, these group dynamics are playing a larger and more destructive role.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14705408455380402571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-71324364726389448032012-09-14T12:33:16.727-04:002012-09-14T12:33:16.727-04:00"goes to Krugman" is putting it a bit mi..."goes to Krugman" is putting it a bit mildly. Gelman never presented any evidence or claimed he had any evidence to present. He just tells us what he would guess a priori about what is likely to happen in 2000. <br /><br />Krugman didn't present evidence either, but that's just because anyone who has ever paid any attention to the debate knows of the massive evidence which Gelman ignores.<br /><br />Also "google" as in Gelman doesn't appear to have googled at all before typing. <br /><br />Finally we see the separate realities in separate ideological bubbles. Many many lefties, progressives and liberals are familiar with the overwhelming evidence that political reporters treated Bush more equally than they treated Gore. I think this evidence is as close to proof as one can find in historiography. <br /><br />But Gelman hasn't even heard of the fact that many people consider the question settled. Krugman perceived no need to link to evidence, because he assumed that the fact that his claim is supported by massive evidence is well known. Gelman assumed that Krugman was just speculating, because he is completely unaware of a huge detailed literature. Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.com