Stephen Wild
LightNews LightNews
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Stephen Wild
@stephenjwild.bsky.social
3.5K followers 960 following 5K posts
I try to put straight lines through things but usually fail. Try to be Bayesian when I can. Views my own. RT/like != endorsement.
Posts Replies Media Videos
stephenjwild.bsky.social
German and English really are close:
A post that says the author has marked a post as being written in German. The post is in English
November 13, 2025 at 2:27 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
That's why you need things lkle this (this comes from a paper that reported positive results. Some of them are clearly driven by the prior)
A plot of effect estimates. While most are positive, a few are only positive *because of the prior*
November 8, 2025 at 5:43 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Image of a man with a couple of coffee sitting st a table. The sign in the table says, "November is a fall month. Change my mind."
November 1, 2025 at 3:21 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Yet, I contend, some datasets on which the MLM has been estimated are non-probability samples for the MLM. If so, estimators are biased and the tools of inferential statistics (e.g., standard errors) are inapplicable, dissolving the foundation for findings from such studies. Further, this circumstance may not be rare; the processes transforming probability samples into problematic samples for the MLM may be inconspicuous but widespread. If this reasoning is correct, many published MLM study findings are likely wrong and, in any case, cannot be evaluated, meaning that, to the extent our knowledge depends on that research, our knowledge is compromised.
October 28, 2025 at 4:59 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
In fairness, he does say he is joking
A Twitter poster says he was joking.
October 28, 2025 at 12:45 AM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Mr Burns pointing at a painting of his body. Text: "You know, I'm no art critic but I know what I hate, and I don't hate this."
October 26, 2025 at 10:29 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Sigh...
Costs on Amazon. Kindle edition: $115.0. Hardcover: $260.00. Paperback: $119.39.
October 25, 2025 at 12:27 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
This is just funny tbh:
Answered by Demetri. Views change over time, and it's cool to see.
October 25, 2025 at 11:31 AM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Was coming to suggest Cohen's book. He also say a bit earlier than the sample sizes would be so large as to be outside the resources of investigators (which was a serious constraint then, not so much for some areas now)
However, in the judgment of the author, for most behavioral science research (although admitting of many exceptions), power values as large as .90-.99 would demand sample sizes so large as to exceed an investigator's resources. Even when, with much effort or at much cost, these large n's can be attained, they are probably inefficient, given the nature of statistical inference and the sociology of science.
October 24, 2025 at 12:35 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
It contains on my favorite misdirection gags.
Homer running from dogs. President Ned Flanders is on the screen. Homer running away from angry dogs. He pulls some weiners out of his pocket and says, "Oh, no, they're gaining on me. Wait! I have an idea. These wieners will give me the energy I need to escape."
October 19, 2025 at 1:15 AM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Obligatory Simpsons reference
Scene from The Simpsons. Homer and Marge are in bed. Homer is surrounded by crows. He says, " It's a "murder," honey. A group of crows is called a "murder." "
October 17, 2025 at 10:38 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
I have a soft spot for three:
A DAG showing a mediator: A -> M -> B
October 17, 2025 at 1:19 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
I would be a wee bit concerned about recruitment and selection effects here (and no, a "diverse sample" does not mitigate this)
Participants were recruited via posts that were made on social media platforms, leveraging the reach and audience of the University of Oregon and Google accounts. Also, in app-notifications were made in the Fitbit app inviting users to participate in the study. Furthermore, the study was limited to individuals who use an Android smartphone as their personal device, which could have introduced some demographic and other biases (41), although the large and diverse sample that was recruited does mitigate against this concern somewhat (Table 4)
October 16, 2025 at 6:56 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Gonna anger everyone
A meme featuring a penguin, an elephant, and weird penguin-elephant hybrid in Noah's Ark. The elephant is labeled "Confidence intervals," the penguin is labeled as "credible intervals," and the weird hybrid as "confidence distributions." Noah gestures at the hy rid and says, "What the hell is this?"
October 8, 2025 at 9:40 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Gonna have to tap the sign: bsky.app/profile/step...
In the present study, we explore the correlates of sexlessness in data from the UK Biobank which consists of ~500,000 middle and old age UK residents who have been genotyped and assessed with extensive testing and surveys
October 6, 2025 at 8:30 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Image of a man in a green shirt and leather jacket. He has long brown hair tied in a ponytail. It is from a viral video in which the man rejects a false binary premise.
October 6, 2025 at 12:46 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
The dullest knife cuts the deepest, or so The Dark Knight Rises taught me.
A picture of AI garbage that says that the phrase "the dullest knife cuts the deepest" comes from the movie The Dark Knight Rises. It does not.
October 5, 2025 at 12:31 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
One of the reasons RCTs work well in the drug approval context because there is a final body--the FDA--who need to be convinced by the trial and results. The same cannot be said for RCTs in other areas, so there is a lot more freedom in how they can be conducted and results interpreted.
Again, as I discuss in Bureaucratic Statistics and in my forthcoming book, the reason we love RCTs in medicine is regulatory. RCTs provide a reasonable framework for the FDA to do its job: encourage pharmaceutical innovation while ensuring products are not poisonous and have the potential to help someone. The RCTs of the FDA, while expensive and onerous, are asking drug makers to clear a pretty low regulatory bar. But why the RCT, then? Ben C. says I’d be unhappy if we picked a drug at random from the list of FDA applications and declared it legal without evidence. This is true. The FDA’s current testing protocols aren’t perfect, but I can make a strong case for them. Randomized drug trials are helpful because they mitigate biases, be they experimenter, participant, or lead-time. They test safety above all else, requiring logging adverse events and halting under warning signals. And their goal is to argue that the drugs might be therapeutically helpful to someone, not that they are curatives for everyone.
October 3, 2025 at 3:42 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
😬

vantagepointdallascounseling.com/research/art...
Methodology We surveyed 1,012 adults living in the United States about their interactions and relationships with artificial intelligence systems and computer systems. We used the Surveymonkey audience census balancing to ensure an even representation of adults from across the nation, age groups, income ranges, and other factors. Our team examined survey data for signs of bad responses including incomplete responses or open answer responses signifying they took the survey in bad faith and removed any such responses. This study has a margin of error of 3.08% at a 95% confidence level.
October 2, 2025 at 7:12 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
So many good ones. I'll pick this one for its randomness:
Two stoned men are talking. “They call them fingers, but I never see ‘em fing”
October 1, 2025 at 7:09 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
A meme with two panels. In panel 1 the woman looks disgusted. In panel 2 intrigued. Text, panel 1: fake data. Text, panel 2: silicon sample
October 1, 2025 at 12:05 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
This is one thing where the question will almost certainly matter. I may be able to read, but I don't read *for fun* on my own time.
Question from age 17 NAEPS long term reading trend. Question: How often do you do each of the following things? A. Read for fun on your own time. B. Tell a friend about a good book. Response options: almost every day, once or twice a week, once or twice a month th, a few times a year, never or hardly ever
September 28, 2025 at 12:06 PM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Good excuse to share this
Meme featuring David and Victoria Beckham Victoria: I am a Bayesian because I don't lkle arbitrary thresholds for significance David: be honest Victoria: I am being honest David: did you conclude there was an effect because the 89% CI excluded 0? Victoria: yes David: Thank you
September 26, 2025 at 11:43 AM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
MADNESS
Two men are fighting. Text: YOU SHOULD REPORT THE MARGINAL EFFECTS I REPORTED THE COEFFICIENT VALUES. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? PEOPLE HAVE A HARD TIME INTERPRETING THOSE VALUES MINUS MEANS LESS AND PLUS MEANS MORE. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGHI INTERPRETING EFFECTS ON THE SCALE OF INTEREST IS NATURAL AND BENEFICIAL
September 25, 2025 at 1:46 AM
stephenjwild.bsky.social
Quite the list they adjust for in some of those models.
Amazing table. The list of variables they adjust for is long, and there is little to explain why.
September 23, 2025 at 4:58 PM