Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Post the Ninth
Wherein your Host Renounces TeX (with Latin goodness)
Abrenuntias LaTeX?
I renounce thee, LaTeX.
Et omnibus operibus eus?
I renounce thee, LaTeX, since ye will not work on my laptop.
Omnibus pompis eus?
I renounce thee, LaTeX, and all pompous statements about the inferiority of off-the-shelf products.
Exorcie te. Omnis spiritus immunde. Adaperiae!
I will humble myself to Microsoft and repent – LaTeX begone from my laptop!
(posted after a failed epic 8-hour battle just to INSTALL TeX)
Abrenuntias LaTeX?
I renounce thee, LaTeX.
Et omnibus operibus eus?
I renounce thee, LaTeX, since ye will not work on my laptop.
Omnibus pompis eus?
I renounce thee, LaTeX, and all pompous statements about the inferiority of off-the-shelf products.
Exorcie te. Omnis spiritus immunde. Adaperiae!
I will humble myself to Microsoft and repent – LaTeX begone from my laptop!
(posted after a failed epic 8-hour battle just to INSTALL TeX)
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Post the Eighth
Wherein your Host Witnesses His First Methods Debate
The quantitative methods field is rife with debate and since I am a (lightly-salted) peanut in the Land of Elephants, I have decided to keep a low profile when discussions of preferred methods or software come up.
Personally your host is of opinion that various techniques we learn are like tools in a tool-box. Just as one wouldn’t use a chainsaw to hang a picture on the wall, there are situations when we might prefer OLS to MLE to Bayesian analysis. I would further say that canned statistical software is probably appropriate for most researchers. The extra effort required to learn R is wasted when STATA does 90% of what we need and add-ons like Zelig or R-Commander are available for free.
Your host has been told that publicly admitting to these opinions would cause me to be labeled a methods “goober.”
So I keep quiet and observe. It is interesting to hear dismissive snorts about how such-and-such is a “frequentist” or so-and-so “STILL uses STATA.” But today I witnessed my first bona-fide methods skirmish, however brief, between two methods elephants.
Elephant 1 made the simple statement that OLS should be the preferred method for analysis if a thorough pre and post-regression analysis has been conducted and more complicated models have confirmed the results. In your host’s opinion, this is a rather non-controversial statement since OLS is easiest mode of analysis for the reader (and writer) to interpret and this was precisely Elephant 1’s point.
He was immediately challenged by Elephant 2, apparently a breed of the Bayesian pacaderm family, who preferred a method with “no assumptions.” (This peanut didn’t want to ask about priors.) Elephant 1 was too kind in response (he is Canadian-bred) and simply re-iterated his point that, if other methods confirm the results, OLS was a reliable and time-tested approach. Elephant 2 stormed away muttering “garbage” – since it was, afterall, Elephant 1’s class. Why Elephant 2 was in the class, I will never know…
And so, gentle reader, if you ever want to go to Math Camp, you have two options: be a methods chauvinist or be quiet. Some might be lucky enough to be born Canadian and, hence, able to express reasonable opinions but the rest of us have to choose.
The quantitative methods field is rife with debate and since I am a (lightly-salted) peanut in the Land of Elephants, I have decided to keep a low profile when discussions of preferred methods or software come up.
Personally your host is of opinion that various techniques we learn are like tools in a tool-box. Just as one wouldn’t use a chainsaw to hang a picture on the wall, there are situations when we might prefer OLS to MLE to Bayesian analysis. I would further say that canned statistical software is probably appropriate for most researchers. The extra effort required to learn R is wasted when STATA does 90% of what we need and add-ons like Zelig or R-Commander are available for free.
Your host has been told that publicly admitting to these opinions would cause me to be labeled a methods “goober.”
So I keep quiet and observe. It is interesting to hear dismissive snorts about how such-and-such is a “frequentist” or so-and-so “STILL uses STATA.” But today I witnessed my first bona-fide methods skirmish, however brief, between two methods elephants.
Elephant 1 made the simple statement that OLS should be the preferred method for analysis if a thorough pre and post-regression analysis has been conducted and more complicated models have confirmed the results. In your host’s opinion, this is a rather non-controversial statement since OLS is easiest mode of analysis for the reader (and writer) to interpret and this was precisely Elephant 1’s point.
He was immediately challenged by Elephant 2, apparently a breed of the Bayesian pacaderm family, who preferred a method with “no assumptions.” (This peanut didn’t want to ask about priors.) Elephant 1 was too kind in response (he is Canadian-bred) and simply re-iterated his point that, if other methods confirm the results, OLS was a reliable and time-tested approach. Elephant 2 stormed away muttering “garbage” – since it was, afterall, Elephant 1’s class. Why Elephant 2 was in the class, I will never know…
And so, gentle reader, if you ever want to go to Math Camp, you have two options: be a methods chauvinist or be quiet. Some might be lucky enough to be born Canadian and, hence, able to express reasonable opinions but the rest of us have to choose.
Labels: ICPSR
Monday, June 26, 2006
Post the Seventh
Wherein your Host Displays the His First Feeble R Efforts
A. The Old Standby:
B. Another Good Friend (Improved with 95% BOOTSTRAPPED confidence interval goodness):
C. Ye Olde Box Plots (Note the Outliers -- In R you can click on them to identify -- woot!!!):
D. Regular and "Jittered" Scatterplots (with a random element added to "stacked observations")
A. The Old Standby:
B. Another Good Friend (Improved with 95% BOOTSTRAPPED confidence interval goodness):
C. Ye Olde Box Plots (Note the Outliers -- In R you can click on them to identify -- woot!!!):
D. Regular and "Jittered" Scatterplots (with a random element added to "stacked observations")
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Post the Sixth
Wherein your Host Arrives in Ann Arbor
Arrived in Ann Arbor today for Math Camp.
I have decided to stay in a student-run co-op since it is half the price of all other living options. For the uninitiated, a co-op is a run-down building where students live in squalor for roughly half the price of all other living options.
Appropriately, the co-op is called "Jones House." One shudders to imagine the dastardly crime one of my ancestors must have committed in order to have a co-op named after him...
... I missed this when I signed up for the place. Apparently members of Jones House are on probation for "deliberate destruction of property."
Should be a fun month...
Arrived in Ann Arbor today for Math Camp.
I have decided to stay in a student-run co-op since it is half the price of all other living options. For the uninitiated, a co-op is a run-down building where students live in squalor for roughly half the price of all other living options.
Appropriately, the co-op is called "Jones House." One shudders to imagine the dastardly crime one of my ancestors must have committed in order to have a co-op named after him...
... I missed this when I signed up for the place. Apparently members of Jones House are on probation for "deliberate destruction of property."
Should be a fun month...
Labels: ICPSR
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Post the Fifth
Wherein your Host Gets Married
Adrienne Juett and Nathan Jones
Christ Episcopal Church
Charlottesville, Virginia
2:00 PM, June 17, 2006
Pictures
Adrienne Juett and Nathan Jones
Christ Episcopal Church
Charlottesville, Virginia
2:00 PM, June 17, 2006
Pictures
Labels: personal
