Tweetovi
- Tweetovi, trenutna stranica.
- Tweetovi i odgovori
- Medijski sadržaj
Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @jonmummolo
Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @jonmummolo
-
Prikvačeni tweet
@PNASNews published a study last year claiming no racial bias in police shootings. The study's central claim was mathematically unsupported.@dean_c_knox & I submitted critique to PNAS, which was rejected. We appealed. Today PNAS published our critique.1/nhttps://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1261 …Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
Happy to share that my first published paper is out at APSR!
@benlhammond and I show that when looking at the distribution of pork to legislators’ districts, the data you choose to use can alter your results in important ways.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000881 …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
Wow, everyone really is claiming victory in the Iowa caucusespic.twitter.com/7JGlsqm5ON
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
Does he have any idea what a multilevel model is?https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1224398220635316225 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
"It took us months to contest a flawed study on police bias," write
@dean_c_knox and@jonmummolo. "Here’s why that’s dangerous."https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/28/it-took-us-months-contest-flawed-study-police-bias-heres-why-thats-dangerous/ …Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
A study claimed to show that "White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers." But as Dean Knox and
@jonmummolo write, it was based on a logical fallacy and erroneous statistical reasoninghttps://wapo.st/2Ry3Br2Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
Professor Susanne Ditlevsen talking about
@jonmummolo et al.s important criticism of the failed police shooting study in PNAS. At the yearly professor symposium at the University of Copenhagen — a good day for sciencepic.twitter.com/ILiZQyV5UC
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
A study claimed to show that "White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers." But as Dean Knox and
@jonmummolo write, it was based on a logical fallacy and erroneous statistical reasoninghttps://wapo.st/3aMKiSuHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
When research makes mistakes, even blatant ones, it’s almost impossible to set the record straight.
@dean_c_knox and I discuss this in a new op-ed in@washingtonpost Science needs to do better.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/28/it-took-us-months-contest-flawed-study-police-bias-heres-why-thats-dangerous/ …Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Social science is very lucky to have
@b_m_stewart.pic.twitter.com/kKYvIS0mvl
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Very clear & succinct summary by
@CrimAndyW of a large literature on police violence, & an impartial assessment of methodological errors therein, including critiques of studies by the author's friends & colleagues. Insight and integrity on display here.https://andrewpwheeler.com/2020/01/26/statement-on-recent-officer-involved-shooting-research/ …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
One bad conservative study doesn't balance one bad liberal study-- they're both bad. Adding more bad studies makes it worse.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
I would be eager to read research on researcher biases if it was well designed. But the idea that you can see a single critique, look at the direction of result being criticized and infer bias is silly. Ironically, it's a terrible research design, very prone to confirmation bias.https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1221476313384521729 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Being called liberally biased for critiquing research claiming no racial bias in police violence. 2 yrs ago I was accused of conservative bias for critiquing a Voter ID study. Both studies made indisputable errors on matters of great policy importance. I call balls and strikes.https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1221475468005777410 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Jonathan Mummolo proslijedio/la je Tweet
In a letter appearing in
@PNASnews,@PUPolitics faculty members@jonmummolo and@dean_c_knox discuss the logical fallacy of a 2019 study on racial bias and policing: http://ow.ly/LE3w50y48WH pic.twitter.com/GGzj3sxJHF
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
This isn’t about motivations. Those are unknowable. And I don’t endorse attacks on people’s motives, even if I disagree with them. The great thing about science—real science—is that motives are irrelevant. We can all look at the evidence and make a judgement based on that. https://twitter.com/DrJennR/status/1221242419599040512 …
Tweet je nedostupan.Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
That methodological study already exists: Bayes (1763). Pr(race|shot) != Pr(shot|race). Given this, your study can’t test, as it claims, “whether officers are more likely to shoot” anyone. We should seek the data we need, not estimate the wrong quantity & hope for the best. https://twitter.com/DrJennR/status/1221148398947987456 …
Tweet je nedostupan.Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Ok, but you would still want to get data on *all* officers, not just those involved in shootings. Suppose you found 5% of officers involved in shootings had those traits. Is that informative? If 5% of those not involved in shootings also had those traits, you'd probably say no.https://twitter.com/TheContentiousO/status/1221141854143512577 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
If you mean Fryer (2019) & Johnson et al. (2019), then yes. We outline problems in Fryer (2019) here: https://twitter.com/jonmummolo/status/1097509276497731585?lang=en … We outline problems in Johnson et al. (2019) here: https://twitter.com/jonmummolo/status/1219694149424861184 …https://twitter.com/StephenABishopp/status/1221137633788809218 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
It is deeply troubling that peer-reviewed journals across disciplines continue to allow fundamentally flawed research of this kind into print. This is a basic and indisputable statistical error applied to the study of a life and death policy issue. This needs to stop. (n/n)
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.