Tweetovi
- Tweetovi, trenutna stranica.
- Tweetovi i odgovori
- Medijski sadržaj
Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @yudapearl
Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @yudapearl
-
Prikvačeni tweet
Hi everybody, the intense discussion over The Book of Why drove me to add my two cents. I will not be able to comment on every tweet, but I will try to squeak where it makes a difference.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
, equally important question: "Suppose it was right, what would we do with it?". Attending to this question is pre-requisite to resolving causal problems such as Lord's Paradox. (or, more generally: should we adjust for base-line conditions?)
#BookofwhyPrikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Any disdain or conspiratorial undertones on my side are imaginary at best. In fact, as I articulate here: https://ucla.in/2v72QK5 I respectfully invite mainstreamers to join me in the effort, by temporarily halting the question "What if the model was wrong?" and attend to anotherhttps://twitter.com/ArcusCoTangens/status/1224202227117629443 …
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Correcting a link to the Lord Paradox posting. The correct link is http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/index.php/2019/08/13/lords-paradox-the-power-of-causal-thinking/ … and it should go to: Lord Paradox and the Power of Causal Thinking. (Thanks to Stephen Leroy for noting).
#BookofwhyHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
2/ sufficient for resolving the paradox, namely, for deciding if X increases Y for a person with unknown color. I would be happy to respond to anyone who thinks this statement is in some way incomplete.
#BookofwhyPrikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
1/ About a dozen or so readers have offered creative proposals for resolving Simpson's paradox in the X,Y,Color scatter plot example. I can't comments on each of the proposals, but I would beg the discussants to focus on my humble proposal: A causal model is both necessary and https://twitter.com/agpatriota/status/1224145232952025088 …
Tweet je nedostupan.Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Cook & Campbell spent years enumerating threats to validity -- they could not do any better, and this paper explains why: https://ucla.in/2N7S0K9 . Today, that we know how to establish external validity, it is a pleasure to see all the threats that are circumvented.
#Bookofwhyhttps://twitter.com/societyforepi/status/1223327654323113988 …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
I do not believe any of these countries thinks this "peace plan" was meant to be a peace plan. It was meant to be a sober reminder to Palestinians that time may no longer be on their side, to stop the tantrum and accept their neighbors as permanent, equally indigenous neighbors.https://twitter.com/RealSarahIdan/status/1223354408471166976 …
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Judea Pearl proslijedio/la je Tweet
It’s said that I’m a total failure, that I achieved nothing-but I have-just one thing: Brexit, my lifelong, publicly avowed, constantly sought, undisguised dream. Without me,
#BrexitDay would not be happening. My legacy is assured: Hallelujah!Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
A colleague alerted me to a new wikipedia entry on Market Blanket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_blanket … It is badly written, defining MB as a property of a graph, instead of a probability distribution. The most astonishing feature, uniqueness under positivity, is not mentioned.
#BookofwhyHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
3/3 when I remind them of the date, and their students still can't cope with a paradox that has haunted statistics for the past 120 years. Pearl unfairly bashes statistics, they say.
#BookofwhyPrikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
2/ Yet 90% of living statisticians still believe it can be "resolved" by re-visualizing data. My esteemed discussants on The American Statistician, https://ucla.in/2Jfl2VS (eg, Xiao-Li Meng) wouldn't even utter the word "causation". And it is 2020, and Statisticians get angry
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
1/Curious me took a glimpse at Michael Nielsen's blog, which triggered Gelman's discussion of Simpson's paradox http://michaelnielsen.org/reinventing_explanation/index.html …. Michael is blunt: "[The paradox] shows that some of our ingrained intuitions about statistics are not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong." Yet
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
My disagreement with Gelman is fundamental, because his views represent an attitude that paralyzes wide circles of statistical researchers. My initial reaction was posted on https://bit.ly/2H3BH3b Related posts: https://ucla.in/2sgzkPZ and https://ucla.in/2v72QK5
#Bookofwhyhttps://twitter.com/dinga92/status/1223261497922609152 …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
Retweeting my rebuttal to Imbens's paper, because readers complained about bad @@ signs in the original post. The link is still the same: https://ucla.in/36EoNzO
#Bookofwhyhttps://twitter.com/yudapearl/status/1222814915921997824 …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
2/ deals with side effects in experimental settings). In this sense one can safely say that SCM provides legitimization for the logic of PO, but rejects PO as a "framework" or "approach"
#BookofwhyPrikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
1/ Another important clarification. In what way does SCM embrace the logic of PO? Ans. It supports the consistency rule Y_x = Y if X=x, which is the main inference engine of PO. Consistency a theorem in SCM https://ucla.in/2MlB5Utand and an assumption in PO (part of SUTVA, whichhttps://twitter.com/yudapearl/status/1223161698875367424 …
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
2/ (eg., ignorability conditions). Why can't PO start with what we believe? Because it insists on expressing everything in the language of Y_x, no structure, no DAGs, while SCM starts with the language in which scientific knowledge is stored: "who listens to whom?"
#BookofwhyPrikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
1/ Important clarification of this point: SCM embraces the counterfactual notation Y_x and its logic, but not the "PO approach" which is a research methodology built around Y_x. The fundamental difference: SCM starts with what you believe (eg DAG), PO starts with what you need (ehttps://twitter.com/yudapearl/status/1223051800334360577 …
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
A chapter in history. Readers asked when the relationship between PO and DAGs was first reported. My earliest record is this '93 Stat Conference in Florence https://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R195-LL.pdf … (Section 6) As I recall, the audience had NO IDEA what I was talking about - blank eyed.
#Bookofwhyhttps://twitter.com/yudapearl/status/1222814915921997824 …Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi -
For the benefit of all readers, I have compiled my "Causal, Casual and Curious" articles in one searchable page, now posted here: https://ucla.in/3aWaQkf . Enjoy.
#BookofwhyHvala. 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.