Jesse: it was an entire thread that got deleted. You can infer some of its content based on the thread that was regurgitated by Fabiola, in which posters wondered why it got deleted:
http://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/what-happened-to-the-post-on-gelmans-monkey-cage-post
So it was a single post within the Gelman thread that contained the STATA or R output? Or an entire thread?
^and so the conclusion is that Broockman is either a plagiarist or a liar. The phrases he uses in the report are almost identical to those that the anonymous poster uses ("not one in X"). So either they are one and the same or he copied the anonymous poster. If he copied the poster then he is a plagiarist. If he WAS the poster then he is a liar because his timeline and explanation of why he was looking into this are very far from the truth. Which is it, David? And, by the way, I have supported you through this whole thing. I always figured the poster was someone else and you just arrived at the same coincidentally. But the phrases - my gosh - they are the same as in your report. You should have been more careful. No, this is not faking data. But it is rotten I think.
from the Gelman's Monkey Post Thread
Just took a look at the data. Kind of weird.... Check out this crosstab.
. insheet using science-data.txt, comma clear
. reshape wide therm_level ssm_level, i(panelist_id) j(wave)
. tab ssm_level1 ssm_level2
1 | 2 ssm_level
ssm_level | 1 2 3 4 5 | Total
-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+----------
1 | 2,754 623 25 2 3 | 3,407
2 | 182 779 208 11 1 | 1,181
3 | 4 148 657 185 11 | 1,005
4 | 0 13 226 1,044 307 | 1,590
5 | 0 0 24 526 2,864 | 3,414
-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+----------
Total | 2,940 1,563 1,140 1,768 3,186 | 10,597
. corr ssm_level1 ssm_level2
(obs=10597)
| ssm_le~1 ssm_le~2
-------------+------------------
ssm_level1 | 1.0000
ssm_level2 | 0.9519 1.0000
That amount of intertemporal stability is not believable to me. Not one of the 2,940 people who answered at 1 at time 2 answered at 4 or 5 at time 1? Is that consistent with other online panels?
Same thing in the feeling thermometer...
. destring therm_level*, replace force
. corr therm_level1 therm_level2
(obs=10597)
| therm_~1 therm_~2
-------------+------------------
therm_level1 | 1.0000
therm_level2 | 0.9882 1.0000
.988? That's nuts. Even if the measurements were a week apart.
Don't know how to reproduce this on PSR but check out this plot too on your own computers...
. scatter therm_level1 therm_level2
The noise is weirdly normally distributed, with *NOT ONE* respondent out of 10597 deviating by more than 25 in a negative direction or 38 in a positive direction. That complete lack of survey error in a sample so large is bizarre. All it takes is one person to misinterpret the feeling thermometer, think it's for a different question, etc.
Here's ANES 2012 vs. 2013 just as a rough benchmark, realizing that the time difference is way more and mode is different etc.:
. corr gayft2012 gayft2013
(obs=1492)
| gay~2012 gay~2013
-------------+------------------
gayft2012 | 1.0000
gayft2013 | 0.7106 1.0000
The amount of instability is *24x* lower in this study than in the ANES. Not saying that couldn't happen, but it is weird. Anecdotally, I've seen party ID within survey have a much lower correlation.
It's consistent with ML having a fixed sample size and a fixed believable effect size and having to work backward to what would be statistically significant (if there was less stability, the study would be less well-powered).
DEFINITELY not saying this nails anything, just that digging deeper into this data probably should be done...
Wow, Desmond - you're absolutely right! But what you're missing is that the stata code poster and DB are clearly BOTH plagiarists. They obviously stole their analyses from the Grateful Dead's song "One Thing To Try". You can tell that because the song also uses the magical "not one in X" language - see:
Not one in a hundred got his feet on the ground,
In fact one in a thousand holding some in reserve
For when the real, true action comes around the curve.
http://www.lyricsmania.com/one_thing_to_try_lyrics_grateful_dead.html
^and so the conclusion is that Broockman is either a plagiarist or a liar. The phrases he uses in the report are almost identical to those that the anonymous poster uses ("not one in X"). So either they are one and the same or he copied the anonymous poster. If he copied the poster then he is a plagiarist. If he WAS the poster then he is a liar because his timeline and explanation of why he was looking into this are very far from the truth. Which is it, David? And, by the way, I have supported you through this whole thing. I always figured the poster was someone else and you just arrived at the same coincidentally. But the phrases - my gosh - they are the same as in your report. You should have been more careful. No, this is not faking data. But it is rotten I think.
