Hajnal's voter ID response « Political Science Rumors

2 years - 239 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 1 Goods vs 2 No Goods
Thread: 1248 Goods vs 927 No Goods

Political Science Rumors » Political Science » Research / Journals

Hajnal's voter ID response

« Previous 1…1112

Nowell

Sorry. And the part where they intentionally misquote? And misrepresent the models? They lied, plain and simple

Hajnal et al coded one state's turnout as 0, which dramatically skewed their results --- so that the point estimate of voter ID laws was to increase turnout. This was implausible, so they just assumed that the sign went the other way and reported this point estimate negative.
The part where they lie in the response is directly quoting *half a sentence* in which the first part negates the part they quoted.
I haven't thought about this in a few months but this second part still baffles me. There's just no way they could get away with it...except for the obscuritanist trolls on this website.
Thanks. Unbelievably bad practices.
They also misinterpret an estimated positive total effect of voter ID on turnout among minorities as a negative effect because the race interaction is negative (but smaller than the coefficient on the lower-order term).
they also lie about the models that were present in the original paper. And they claim to run a placebo check that actually isn't a placebo check.

These aren't lies and it does not rise to the level of research misconduct. ZH did not code the data as 0, as is claimed. They were just not careful enough to notice this issue with the data. They misinterpreted their results, but this does not qualify as lying. It was just poorly executed research that was inaccurately reported. The key to research misconduct is intent. Sloppy, yes. Intentionally falsifying research - no.
We do have examples of bona fide research misconduct in our discipline, and nothing happens in those cases. So, the general point is accurate.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 5 NAY !
Alfreda

These aren't lies and it does not rise to the level of research misconduct. ZH did not code the data as 0, as is claimed. They were just not careful enough to notice this issue with the data. They misinterpreted their results, but this does not qualify as lying. It was just poorly executed research that was inaccurately reported. The key to research misconduct is intent. Sloppy, yes. Intentionally falsifying research - no.
We do have examples of bona fide research misconduct in our discipline, and nothing happens in those cases. So, the general point is accurate.

This is correct on the initial paper, but the lying occurred in the reply to Grimmer, where they lie about what they did and did not do and about their mistakes in the initial draft.

1 year ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 6 NAY !
Kaylee

These aren't lies and it does not rise to the level of research misconduct. ZH did not code the data as 0, as is claimed. They were just not careful enough to notice this issue with the data. They misinterpreted their results, but this does not qualify as lying. It was just poorly executed research that was inaccurately reported. The key to research misconduct is intent. Sloppy, yes. Intentionally falsifying research - no.
We do have examples of bona fide research misconduct in our discipline, and nothing happens in those cases. So, the general point is accurate.

This is correct on the initial paper, but the lying occurred in the reply to Grimmer, where they lie about what they did and did not do and about their mistakes in the initial draft.

Do we actually think it's ok that JOP and Jenkins knowingly let Hajnal lie in print?

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 4 NAY !
Calvin

These aren't lies and it does not rise to the level of research misconduct. ZH did not code the data as 0, as is claimed. They were just not careful enough to notice this issue with the data. They misinterpreted their results, but this does not qualify as lying. It was just poorly executed research that was inaccurately reported. The key to research misconduct is intent. Sloppy, yes. Intentionally falsifying research - no.
We do have examples of bona fide research misconduct in our discipline, and nothing happens in those cases. So, the general point is accurate.
This is correct on the initial paper, but the lying occurred in the reply to Grimmer, where they lie about what they did and did not do and about their mistakes in the initial draft.

Do we actually think it's ok that JOP and Jenkins knowingly let Hajnal lie in print?

You have to hold JoP responsible for much of this. What kinds of reviewers are they choosing? Certainly not the ones that they choose to review MY work!

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 3 NAY !
Kaylee

You have to hold JoP responsible for much of this. What kinds of reviewers are they choosing? Certainly not the ones that they choose to review MY work!

They did not send the Hajnal reply out for review but did review the Grimmer comment. Jenkins should be fired for this.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 12 NAY !
Will

So submit a motion to fire Jenkins. He’s busy and I’m sure didn’t want to contribute to the right wing feeding frenzy that was already happening around the article.

You have to hold JoP responsible for much of this. What kinds of reviewers are they choosing? Certainly not the ones that they choose to review MY work!

They did not send the Hajnal reply out for review but did review the Grimmer comment. Jenkins should be fired for this.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 0 NAY !
Marlon

After Grimmer's twitter tirade on this, I really think Grimmer is trying to keep this post alive...

1 year ago # QUOTE 13 YEA 2 NAY !
Adriana

Nope, just think this is all Grim and his boys. All jerks. All tools. H and L are doing just fine.

1 year ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 3 NAY !
Gaylord

Quant political science is irrelevant, and this is why quants can and do serially lie through their so-called research. Quant is nothing but busy work used to block the actual scientific (critical) treatment of political phenomena. Quants play with numbers while Rome is (literally) burning -- global warming, the threat of nuclear war.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 4 NAY !
James T.

Quant political science is irrelevant, and this is why quants can and do serially lie through their so-called research. Quant is nothing but busy work used to block the actual scientific (critical) treatment of political phenomena. Quants play with numbers while Rome is (literally) burning -- global warming, the threat of nuclear war.

Psycho qual makes a great point. If we want to deal with global warming, we should ban all numbers and data, which are useless for studying this subject scientifically and figuring out technologies/economic strategies for dealing with it. Instead, let's have psycho qual talk to some cab drivers in his field work site about their feelings.

1 year ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 0 NAY !
Alfreda

Quant political science is irrelevant, and this is why quants can and do serially lie through their so-called research. Quant is nothing but busy work used to block the actual scientific (critical) treatment of political phenomena. Quants play with numbers while Rome is (literally) burning -- global warming, the threat of nuclear war.

Psycho qual makes a great point. If we want to deal with global warming, we should ban all numbers and data, which are useless for studying this subject scientifically and figuring out technologies/economic strategies for dealing with it. Instead, let's have psycho qual talk to some cab drivers in his field work site about their feelings.

Psycho qual is exactly why ZH and NL should be driven out of the field. The answers matter and they don’t seem to care, so we don’t need them in the future of polisci.

Lean out, or whatever we’re saying these days.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 4 NAY !
Tom

1. It is a well-known fact that Imai was on probation for research misconduct at Princeton. Several statisticians (Pearl, Wakefield) have called him out for plagiarism or some other form of intellectual dishonesty. He also stole from other people, e.g., the list experiment paper from Glynn.

2. No one in their own right mind has ever asked Tingley to coauthor with them. Certainly not Milner or Imai. Juniors are advised to avoid him like the plague when he pesters them with requests. It is publicly known that it was Tingley who begged Milner to write a book with him because he was stupid enough to beg her in his dissertation acknowledgements for everyone to see. As for Imai, he never payed much attention to Tingley until the latter became a Harvard professor (which was a fluke as their top choice declined, and Frieden is too innumerate to see the flaws in Tingley’s work), because Imai had been wanting a Harvard appointment for quite some time, and Tingley unexpectedly became a useful vehicle for that.

3. Tingley’s lie regarding a bootstrap that was actually never performed has been discussed at length on another PSR thread, with R code and links to the bootstrap documentation:

https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/ses-of-predicted-probabilities-in-logit/page/2

4. It is becoming ridiculous how Tingely keeps posting to defend himself and upvoting his own posts when the above facts are common knowledge in the academia. It is also not credible that anyone would be jealous of someone who is the laughingstock of the entire academic community for his free riding behavior.

The plagiarism thing that Judea Pearl pointed out was primarily Imai's fault, not Tingley's. Tingley was a freerider on that article (as on many others). He lacks the skills and IQ to even read and understand Pearl's work, nevermind find ways to adapt it into an article so as to try to make the plagiarism less obvious. Of course, Tingley bears some of the responsibility since sticking your name on other people's work cuts both ways. You get the credit if the work is good, but you also suffer the consequences it's bad or dishonest. I think the posters above are referring to Tingley's ISQ in which he lies about reporting bootstrapped estimates, which was discussed on another thread a long time ago, not to the one plagiarized from Pearl. Although they could be referring to both.

Wow, the pyscho anti-DT troll is back, now with more half-remembered nonsense. No one claimed that Imai or anyone else "plagiarized" Pearl, only that some of their results were implied by other mathematical results in Pearl. There's disagreement on that, by the way, so there's no serious claim there of research misconduct or anything. Claim about a supposed lie about bootstrapping are too vague to take seriously. More unsupported claims about free-riding, with exactly zero evidence.
If DT free-rides, then why do these very top scholars (KI, HM, etc.) consistently ask him to co-author again and again? They're more senior, could co-author with pretty much anyone they want, and yet they regard him as a valuable partner.
Hmm, could this poster just be a jealous loser? Is it possible??

1 year ago # QUOTE 9 YEA 1 NAY !
Fitzwallace

This is amusing. Who knew that Milner was this saintly character who would go to such great lengths to help a hapless individual out of the goodness of her heart?

1. It is a well-known fact that Imai was on probation for research misconduct at Princeton. Several statisticians (Pearl, Wakefield) have called him out for plagiarism or some other form of intellectual dishonesty. He also stole from other people, e.g., the list experiment paper from Glynn.
2. No one in their own right mind has ever asked Tingley to coauthor with them. Certainly not Milner or Imai. Juniors are advised to avoid him like the plague when he pesters them with requests. It is publicly known that it was Tingley who begged Milner to write a book with him because he was stupid enough to beg her in his dissertation acknowledgements for everyone to see. As for Imai, he never payed much attention to Tingley until the latter became a Harvard professor (which was a fluke as their top choice declined, and Frieden is too innumerate to see the flaws in Tingley’s work), because Imai had been wanting a Harvard appointment for quite some time, and Tingley unexpectedly became a useful vehicle for that.
3. Tingley’s lie regarding a bootstrap that was actually never performed has been discussed at length on another PSR thread, with R code and links to the bootstrap documentation:
https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/ses-of-predicted-probabilities-in-logit/page/2
4. It is becoming ridiculous how Tingely keeps posting to defend himself and upvoting his own posts when the above facts are common knowledge in the academia. It is also not credible that anyone would be jealous of someone who is the laughingstock of the entire academic community for his free riding behavior.
The plagiarism thing that Judea Pearl pointed out was primarily Imai's fault, not Tingley's. Tingley was a freerider on that article (as on many others). He lacks the skills and IQ to even read and understand Pearl's work, nevermind find ways to adapt it into an article so as to try to make the plagiarism less obvious. Of course, Tingley bears some of the responsibility since sticking your name on other people's work cuts both ways. You get the credit if the work is good, but you also suffer the consequences it's bad or dishonest. I think the posters above are referring to Tingley's ISQ in which he lies about reporting bootstrapped estimates, which was discussed on another thread a long time ago, not to the one plagiarized from Pearl. Although they could be referring to both.
Wow, the pyscho anti-DT troll is back, now with more half-remembered nonsense. No one claimed that Imai or anyone else "plagiarized" Pearl, only that some of their results were implied by other mathematical results in Pearl. There's disagreement on that, by the way, so there's no serious claim there of research misconduct or anything. Claim about a supposed lie about bootstrapping are too vague to take seriously. More unsupported claims about free-riding, with exactly zero evidence.
If DT free-rides, then why do these very top scholars (KI, HM, etc.) consistently ask him to co-author again and again? They're more senior, could co-author with pretty much anyone they want, and yet they regard him as a valuable partner.
Hmm, could this poster just be a jealous loser? Is it possible??

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 4 NAY !
America

bump

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Marshal

Hajnal et al coded one state's turnout as 0, which dramatically skewed their results --- so that the point estimate of voter ID laws was to increase turnout. This was implausible, so they just assumed that the sign went the other way and reported this point estimate negative.
The part where they lie in the response is directly quoting *half a sentence* in which the first part negates the part they quoted.
I haven't thought about this in a few months but this second part still baffles me. There's just no way they could get away with it...except for the obscuritanist trolls on this website.
Thanks. Unbelievably bad practices.
They also misinterpret an estimated positive total effect of voter ID on turnout among minorities as a negative effect because the race interaction is negative (but smaller than the coefficient on the lower-order term).
they also lie about the models that were present in the original paper. And they claim to run a placebo check that actually isn't a placebo check.

These aren't lies and it does not rise to the level of research misconduct. ZH did not code the data as 0, as is claimed. They were just not careful enough to notice this issue with the data. They misinterpreted their results, but this does not qualify as lying. It was just poorly executed research that was inaccurately reported. The key to research misconduct is intent. Sloppy, yes. Intentionally falsifying research - no.
We do have examples of bona fide research misconduct in our discipline, and nothing happens in those cases. So, the general point is accurate.

If there are demonstrable errors affect results and interpretation, it is the author who has to prove that the errors were accidental, and not done on purpose to fit their theory.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 1 NAY !
Eulalie

JOP editors should resign over this en masse.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !
Diggory

It is a shame if an AP cannot voice his scholarly opinion on a published paper without fear of later repercussions. Polisci is finished as a serious discipline if that is the case. Do we want the field to be pure ideology?

no

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Cecily

This is amusing. Who knew that Milner was this saintly character who would go to such great lengths to help a hapless individual out of the goodness of her heart?
1. It is a well-known fact that Imai was on probation for research misconduct at Princeton. Several statisticians (Pearl, Wakefield) have called him out for plagiarism or some other form of intellectual dishonesty. He also stole from other people, e.g., the list experiment paper from Glynn.
2. No one in their own right mind has ever asked Tingley to coauthor with them. Certainly not Milner or Imai. Juniors are advised to avoid him like the plague when he pesters them with requests. It is publicly known that it was Tingley who begged Milner to write a book with him because he was stupid enough to beg her in his dissertation acknowledgements for everyone to see. As for Imai, he never payed much attention to Tingley until the latter became a Harvard professor (which was a fluke as their top choice declined, and Frieden is too innumerate to see the flaws in Tingley’s work), because Imai had been wanting a Harvard appointment for quite some time, and Tingley unexpectedly became a useful vehicle for that.
3. Tingley’s lie regarding a bootstrap that was actually never performed has been discussed at length on another PSR thread, with R code and links to the bootstrap documentation:
https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/ses-of-predicted-probabilities-in-logit/page/2
4. It is becoming ridiculous how Tingely keeps posting to defend himself and upvoting his own posts when the above facts are common knowledge in the academia. It is also not credible that anyone would be jealous of someone who is the laughingstock of the entire academic community for his free riding behavior.
The plagiarism thing that Judea Pearl pointed out was primarily Imai's fault, not Tingley's. Tingley was a freerider on that article (as on many others). He lacks the skills and IQ to even read and understand Pearl's work, nevermind find ways to adapt it into an article so as to try to make the plagiarism less obvious. Of course, Tingley bears some of the responsibility since sticking your name on other people's work cuts both ways. You get the credit if the work is good, but you also suffer the consequences it's bad or dishonest. I think the posters above are referring to Tingley's ISQ in which he lies about reporting bootstrapped estimates, which was discussed on another thread a long time ago, not to the one plagiarized from Pearl. Although they could be referring to both.
Wow, the pyscho anti-DT troll is back, now with more half-remembered nonsense. No one claimed that Imai or anyone else "plagiarized" Pearl, only that some of their results were implied by other mathematical results in Pearl. There's disagreement on that, by the way, so there's no serious claim there of research misconduct or anything. Claim about a supposed lie about bootstrapping are too vague to take seriously. More unsupported claims about free-riding, with exactly zero evidence.
If DT free-rides, then why do these very top scholars (KI, HM, etc.) consistently ask him to co-author again and again? They're more senior, could co-author with pretty much anyone they want, and yet they regard him as a valuable partner.
Hmm, could this poster just be a jealous loser? Is it possible??

Helen's not a bad person, but she's not a saint either. I find this hard to believe.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !
Cecily

This is amusing. Who knew that Milner was this saintly character who would go to such great lengths to help a hapless individual out of the goodness of her heart?
1. It is a well-known fact that Imai was on probation for research misconduct at Princeton. Several statisticians (Pearl, Wakefield) have called him out for plagiarism or some other form of intellectual dishonesty. He also stole from other people, e.g., the list experiment paper from Glynn.
2. No one in their own right mind has ever asked Tingley to coauthor with them. Certainly not Milner or Imai. Juniors are advised to avoid him like the plague when he pesters them with requests. It is publicly known that it was Tingley who begged Milner to write a book with him because he was stupid enough to beg her in his dissertation acknowledgements for everyone to see. As for Imai, he never payed much attention to Tingley until the latter became a Harvard professor (which was a fluke as their top choice declined, and Frieden is too innumerate to see the flaws in Tingley’s work), because Imai had been wanting a Harvard appointment for quite some time, and Tingley unexpectedly became a useful vehicle for that.
3. Tingley’s lie regarding a bootstrap that was actually never performed has been discussed at length on another PSR thread, with R code and links to the bootstrap documentation:
https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/ses-of-predicted-probabilities-in-logit/page/2
4. It is becoming ridiculous how Tingely keeps posting to defend himself and upvoting his own posts when the above facts are common knowledge in the academia. It is also not credible that anyone would be jealous of someone who is the laughingstock of the entire academic community for his free riding behavior.
The plagiarism thing that Judea Pearl pointed out was primarily Imai's fault, not Tingley's. Tingley was a freerider on that article (as on many others). He lacks the skills and IQ to even read and understand Pearl's work, nevermind find ways to adapt it into an article so as to try to make the plagiarism less obvious. Of course, Tingley bears some of the responsibility since sticking your name on other people's work cuts both ways. You get the credit if the work is good, but you also suffer the consequences it's bad or dishonest. I think the posters above are referring to Tingley's ISQ in which he lies about reporting bootstrapped estimates, which was discussed on another thread a long time ago, not to the one plagiarized from Pearl. Although they could be referring to both.
Wow, the pyscho anti-DT troll is back, now with more half-remembered nonsense. No one claimed that Imai or anyone else "plagiarized" Pearl, only that some of their results were implied by other mathematical results in Pearl. There's disagreement on that, by the way, so there's no serious claim there of research misconduct or anything. Claim about a supposed lie about bootstrapping are too vague to take seriously. More unsupported claims about free-riding, with exactly zero evidence.
If DT free-rides, then why do these very top scholars (KI, HM, etc.) consistently ask him to co-author again and again? They're more senior, could co-author with pretty much anyone they want, and yet they regard him as a valuable partner.
Hmm, could this poster just be a jealous loser? Is it possible??

Helen's not a bad person, but she's not a saint either. I find this hard to believe.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !

« Previous 1…1112

Hajnal's voter ID response

Reply