tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post5282372408007992002..comments2024-03-29T05:56:48.403+01:00Comments on Drang naar Samenhang: The Fanciful Number 2.9013, Plus or Minus NothingRolf Zwaanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-24406089218870881552013-08-28T12:34:13.353+02:002013-08-28T12:34:13.353+02:00I wrote a piece in the psychologist about this gen...I wrote a piece in the psychologist about this general point in the context of cut-off points in statistics:<br /><br />http://www.academia.edu/258338/The_Perils_of_Statistics_By_Numbers<br /><br />thomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00392478801981388165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-89266023210947656892013-07-23T21:03:34.033+02:002013-07-23T21:03:34.033+02:00Exactly! That was my point.Exactly! That was my point.Rolf Zwaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-66873613349359107572013-07-23T21:01:47.487+02:002013-07-23T21:01:47.487+02:00Ummm, h-indexes aren't particularly useful for...Ummm, h-indexes aren't particularly useful for measuring researchers, and RBIs are next to useless for measuring hitters. BMIs can list anorexic body-builders as obese. <br /><br />So maybe simple numbers for complex phenomena are a bad idea in general. (Complex numbers, on the other hand...)Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12072145030980202405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-37496903860644050852013-07-23T20:23:15.672+02:002013-07-23T20:23:15.672+02:00Very nice analysis, Mark. I suspected that most pe...Very nice analysis, Mark. I suspected that most people were not citing the paper because of the specific point estimate. Of course this is what must have made the paper appealing to people but they probably couldn't find a use for the point estimate in their own work. It is like a nipple on a breastplate as a character in a George R.R. Martin novel would say.Rolf Zwaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-71895549434924062252013-07-23T19:34:42.596+02:002013-07-23T19:34:42.596+02:00:) Let's chalk this one up to poetic license.:) Let's chalk this one up to poetic license.Rolf Zwaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-26437190245790524212013-07-23T19:18:13.470+02:002013-07-23T19:18:13.470+02:00I assume you have some data to back up your conten...I assume you have some data to back up your contention about the desires that exist at the heart of all social scientists? :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758234247812589647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-73331192962721035052013-07-23T11:16:14.253+02:002013-07-23T11:16:14.253+02:00Like you, I was also not familiar with this paper/...Like you, I was also not familiar with this paper/ideas until the critique was published.<br /><br />However, I think most people citing the paper were *not* citing it because of the specific point estimates and were instead citing it for other reasons (e.g., the general idea that positive emotions should outweigh negative emotions for flourishing).<br /><br />The original paper has been cited 970 times. Of those 970 times only six papers cite the 2.9013 value (or < 1% of the citations), 125 papers cite the 2.9 value (or ~13% of the citations*), 2 papers cite the 11.6346 value (or < .05% of the citations), and 27 papers cite the 11.6 value (or ~3% of the citations).<br /><br />I also tried searching for "11.5" but this only referred to non-positivity-ratio-related-numbers and for "3" and "11" but these referred to too many other things to be really analyzed (e.g., page numbers).<br /><br />*some of the citations are not in reference to the 2.9 or 11.6 etc in the original paper and instead are Means or SDs of other number (e.g., the SD of age was 2.9). Mark Brandthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15881822302082989101noreply@blogger.com