[ View menu ]

June 11, 2010

I can read minds, you know

Filed in Articles ,Research News
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

GUESSING WHAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT BASED ON BRAIN ACTIVATION

You know how in cheesy 80s movies and TV shows there will be a romantic scene, like two young people on a date, and the guy will say something like “I can read minds, you know” and the girl will say “Ok” and scrunch up her eyes and say “What am I thinking about now?” and then the guy will say something particularly cheesy?

Well, in the future they’ll be able to do that scene and the guy will say “apple” and the girl will go “that’s amazing!” and the guy will go “well, the base rate was one in 60” and the girl will go “can I get out of this fMRI now?”

In any case, read this by Marcel Just et al

A Neurosemantic Theory of Concrete Noun Representation Based on the Underlying Brain Codes

This article describes the discovery of a set of biologically-driven semantic dimensions underlying the neural representation of concrete nouns, and then demonstrates how a resulting theory of noun representation can be used to identify simple thoughts through their fMRI patterns. We use factor analysis of fMRI brain imaging data to reveal the biological representation of individual concrete nouns like apple, in the absence of any pictorial stimuli. From this analysis emerge three main semantic factors underpinning the neural representation of nouns naming physical objects, which we label manipulation, shelter, and eating … the fMRI-measured brain representation of an individual concrete noun like apple can be identified with good accuracy from among 60 candidate words, using only the fMRI activity in the 16 locations associated with these factors. To further demonstrate the generativity of the proposed account, a theory-based model is developed to predict the brain activation patterns for words to which the algorithm has not been previously exposed. The methods, findings, and theory constitute a new approach of using brain activity for understanding how object concepts are represented in the mind.

In order words, they can read your mind.

I like this task description:

Task: When a word was presented, the participants’ task was to actively think about the properties of the object to which the word referred.

… I wonder if the subjects were tempted to scrunch their eyes.

Find the full article here (free PDF download): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008622

REFERENCE: Just MA, Cherkassky VL, Aryal S, Mitchell TM (2010) A Neurosemantic Theory of Concrete Noun Representation Based on the Underlying Brain Codes. PLoS ONE 5(1): e8622. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008622

photo credit: The movie “Can’t Buy Me Love”, which doesn’t have the aforementioned scene, but does have the kind of nerdy-guy-dates-popular-girl device that causes writers to trot out the “I can read minds” bit.

June 3, 2010

Baseball, basketball, and (not) getting better as time marches on

Filed in Gossip ,Ideas ,R
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

PROS ARE NOT GETTING BETTER AT FREE THROWS

Rick Larrick recently told Decision Science News that baseball players have been getting better over the years in a couple ways.

First, home runs and strikeouts have increased. The careless or clueless reader might note that this is curious, for from the batter’s perspective home runs are a good thing and strikeouts are a bad thing. What’s going on? Batters may be swinging harder, increasing the chance of both. The purported improvement is a result of the benefit of a home run being greater than the cost of a strikeout. After all, a home run results in at least one run, often more, and runs are a big deal since the typical team earns only about 5 of them per game.

DSN wondered how the players learned to swing harder from one decade to the next. Was it based on feedback from coaches? Or from fans / media attention?

According to Larrick, the number of attempted stolen bases has decreased over the years. Apparently, it is only worth it to steal if one can pull a very high percentage of the time, higher than had been believed in previous years (anyone know the stat?). So while crowds (presumably) like the action of stolen bases, players do not respond by doing it more. Winning seems more important than pleasing the crowd, which is a strike against the fan-feedback hypothesis.

After our post on winning back-to-back baseball games, some folks like our friend Russ Smith made comparisons to the hot hand effect. There is something to it. However, in the baseball example one starts with a prior of .5 (since one doesn’t even know which two teams are playing), while in basketball the chance a pro will make a free throw is about .75 (since one can condition on the player being a pro). What is surprising is that in both cases, the past success tells you next to nothing.

This conversation lead your Editor to find this NY Times article which shows that, surprisingly, pro basketball players are not getting better at free throws over the years.

So, the question to the readers is: Why do some athletic abilities improve as history marches on (e.g., running speeds, batting, base-stealing) and others do not (e.g., free throws)?

P.S. For the record, Decision Science News is not becoming a sports blog. It is just a phase the Web site is going through. That said, there has been interest in seeing this kind of result in other sports, so that analysis will be coming in future posts, in glorious, glorious R and ggplot2. (Don’t know R yet? Learn by watching: R Video Tutorial 1, R Video Tutorial 2)

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cakecrumb/4398699952/. A cupcake was chosen because Jeff gave us empirical evidence that people like cupcakes much more than a control food.

May 28, 2010

Tuesday’s child is full of probability puzzles

Filed in Encyclopedia ,Ideas ,R ,Tools
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

COUNTERINTUITIVE PROBLEM, INTUITIVE REPRESENTATION

Blog posts about counterintuitive probability problems generate lots of opinions with a high probability.

Andrew Gelman and readers have been having a lot of fun with the following probability problem:

I have two children. One is a boy born on a Tuesday. What is the probability I have two boys? The first thing you think is “What has Tuesday got to do with it?” Well, it has everything to do with it.

DSN agrees with Andrew that one virtue of the “population-distribution” method is that it forces one to be explicit about various aspects of the problem, and in so doing, causes much confusion to disappear.

As a public service this week, Decision Science News presents the population-distribution representation of the problem (what it thinks of as the Gigerenzerian / Hoffragian / Peter Sedlmeier-ian representation of the problem) in a visual form.

To follow the logic, see Andrew’s post on how he solved the problem. Voila:

Red means “outside the reference class”. Yellow means “in the reference class but not boy-boy”. Green means “inside the reference class and boy-boy”.

Boy-boy in the reference class occurs with probability Green / (Green + Yellow) or 13 /27

NOTE
To see why DSN calls these Gigerenzerian / Hoffragian / Sedlmeierian representations, see:

Sedlmeier, P. (1997). BasicBayes: A tutor system for simple Bayesian inference.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 29(3), 328-336.

Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102,, 684–704.

(Sorry for not using R, excel is just darn fast for some things)

May 21, 2010

Some novel ideas to assist retirement investing

Filed in Ideas ,Research News
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

IMAGINING THE FUTURE TO HELP PREPARE FOR IT

The New York Times just ran a piece called Some Novel Ideas for Improving Retirement Income about having people read Victorian novels in order to increase their retirement savings rates.

Actually, that is not true.

But it did feature some newer ideas from Psychology and Behavioral Finance and Economics presented at a Allianz-sponsored event on Monday in NYC on improving retirement decision making, including:

  • Work by Hal Ersner-Hershfield, Dan Goldstein, and Bill Sharpe using age-morphed photos of people with varying emotional expressions as a way to increase how connected people feel to their future selves. It is like the scene in a Christmas Carol in which Scrooge sees the future and upon returning promises: “I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.” Like the Distribution Builder, this technology helps people imagine what the future may be like.

Hal, sad about saving now, but psyched about spending later

  • Work by Eric Johnson on high sensitivity to loss among the elderly
  • Findings by Alessandro Previtero on how recent stock market returns affect people’s decisions to buy annuities (which of course last a long, long time)
  • Ideas by George Loewenstein on using mental accounts to help people achieve goals

These projects and more can be read about in the new report from Allianz entitled Behavioral Finance and the Post-Retirement Crisis.

photo credit: www.flickr.com/photos/nrg-photos/4199392655

May 14, 2010

JDM 2010 Conference, St. Louis, November 19-22

Filed in Conferences ,SJDM ,SJDM-Conferences
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

31st ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY FOR JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING 2010

SJDM’s 31st annual conference will be held in the Drury Plaza Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri, during November 19-22, 2010. Early registration and welcome reception will take place the evening of Friday, November 19.

Hotel reservations at the $125/night Psychonomic convention rate can be made by clicking here.

JDMers can also stay at the Millenium Hotel at the conference rate of $134/night by clicking here, or $107/night for students here.

SUBMISSIONS
The deadline for submissions is June 21, 2010. Current call for abstracts is here. Submissions for symposia, oral presentations, and posters should be made through the SJDM website at http://sql.sjdm.org. Technical questions can be addressed to the webmaster, Jon Baron, at www@sjdm.org. All other questions can be addressed to the program chair, Michel Regenwetter, at regenwet@uiuc.edu.

ELIGIBILITY
At least one author of each presentation must be a member of SJDM. Joining at the time of submission will satisfy this requirement. A membership form may be downloaded from the SJDM website at http://www.sjdm.org/jdm-member.html. An individual may give only one talk (podium presentation) and present only one poster, but may be a co-author on multiple talks and/or posters.

AWARDS
The Best Student Poster Award is given for the best poster presentation whose first author is a student member of SJDM.

The Hillel Einhorn New Investigator Award is intended to encourage outstanding work by new researchers. Applications are due July 1, 2010. Further details are available at http://www.sjdm.org.

The Jane Beattie Memorial Fund subsidizes travel to North America for a foreign scholar in pursuits related to judgment and decision research, including attendance at the annual SJDM meeting. Further details will be available at http://www.sjdm.org.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Michel Regenwetter (Chair), Craig McKenzie, Nathan Novemsky, Bernd Figner, Gretchen Chapman, Gal Zauberman, Ulf Reips, Wandi Bruine de Bruin, Ellie Kyung

May 5, 2010

You won, but how much was luck and how much was skill?

Filed in Encyclopedia ,Ideas ,R ,Research News ,SJDM
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

THE ABILITY OF WINNERS TO WIN AGAIN

Even people who aren’t avid baseball fans (your DSN editor included) can get something out of this one.

When two baseball teams play each other on two consecutive days, what is the probability that the winner of the first game will be the winner of the second game?

[If you like fun, write down your prediction.]

DSN’s father-in-law told him that recently the Mets beat the Phillies 9 to 1, but the very next day, the Phillies beat the Mets 10 to 0. How could this be? If the Mets were so good as to win by 8 points, how could the exact same players be so bad as to lose by 10 points to the same opponents 24 hours later?

Let’s call this situation (in which team A beats team B one one day, but team B beats team A the very next day) a “reversal”, and we’ll say the size of the reversal is the smaller of the two margins of victory. In the above example, the size of the reversal was 8.

Using R (code provided below), DSN obtained statistics on all major league baseball games played between 1970 and 2009 and calculated how often each type of reversal occurs per 100,000 pairs of consecutive games. The result is in the the graph above. Big reversals are rare. A reversal of size 8 occurs in only 174 of 100,000 games; a size 12 reversal happens but 10 times per 100k. A size 13 reversal never happened in those 40 years. One might think this is because it would be uncommon for a team that is so good to suddenly become so bad and vice versa, but note that big margins of victory are rare: only 4% of games have margins of victory of 8 points or larger.

Back to our question:

If a team wins on one day, what’s the probability they’ll win against the same opponent when they play the very next day?

We asked two colleagues knowledgeable in baseball and the mathematics of forecasting. The answers came in between 65% and 70%.

The true answer: 51.3%, a little better than a coin toss.

That’s right. When you win in baseball, there’s only a 51% chance you’ll win again in more or less identical circumstances. The careful reader might notice that the answer is visible in the already mentioned chart. The reversals of size 0, (meaning no reversal, meaning the same team won twice) occur 51,296 times per 100,000 pairs of consecutive games.

[At this point, DSN must admit that it is entirely possible that it has made a computational error. It welcomes others to reproduce the analysis with the code or pre-processed data at the end of this post.]

What of the adage “the best predictor of future performance is past performance”? It seems less true than Sting’s observation “History will teach us nothing“. Let’s continue the investigation.

Here were plot the probability of winning the second game based on obtaining various margins of victory in the first game. We simply calculated the average win rate for each margin of victory up to 11 games, which makes up 98% of the data, and bin together the remaining 2%, comprising margins of victory from 12 to 27 points. (Rest assured, the binning makes the graph look prettier, but does not affect the outcome.)

The equation of the robust regression line is: Probability(Win_Second_Game) = .498 + .004*First_Game_Margin which suggests that even if you win the first game by an obscene 20 points, your chance of winning the second game is only 57.8%

Still in disbelief? Here we do no binning and plot the margin of victory (or loss) of the first game winner as a function of its margin of victory in the first game. The clear heteroskedasticity is dealt with by iterative reweighted least squares in R’s rlm command. Similar results are obtained by fitting a loess line. This model is Expected_Second_Game_Margin = -.012 + .030*First_Game_Margin

One final note. The 51.3% chance you’ll win the second game given you’ve won the first is smaller than the so called “home team advantage”, which we found to be a win probability of 54.2% on first games and 53.8% on second games.

When the home team wins the first game, it wins the second game 54.7% of the time.
When the home team loses the first game, it wins the second game 52.8% of the time.
When the visitor wins the first game, it wins the second game 47.2% of the time.
When the visitor loses the first game, it wins the second game 45.3% of the time.

Surprisingly, when it comes to winning the second game, it’s better to be the home team who just lost than the visitor who just won. So much for drawing conclusions from winning. Decision Science News has always wondered why teams are so eager to fire their coaches after they lose a few big games. Don’t they realize that their desired state of having won those same few big games would have been mostly due to luck?

There you have it. Either we have made an egregious error in calculation or recent victories are surprisingly uninformative.

Do your own analysis alternative 1: The pre-processed data
If you wish, you can cheat and get the pre-processed data at http://www.dangoldstein.com/flash/bball/reversals.zip

This may be of interest for people who don’t use R or for impatient types who just want to cut to the chase.

No guarantee that our pre-processing is correct. It should be all pairs of consecutive games between the same two teams.

Do your own analysis alternative 2: The code

I’ll provide the column names file for your convenience at http://www.dangoldstein.com/flash/bball/cnames.txt. I left out a bunch of columns names I didn’t care about. The complete list is at: http://www.dangoldstein.com/flash/bball/glfields.txt

R CODE
(Don’t know R yet? Learn by watching: R Video Tutorial 1, R Video Tutorial 2)

#Data obtained from http://www.retrosheet.org/
#Go for the files http://www.retrosheet.org/gamelogs/gl1970_79.zip through
#http://www.retrosheet.org/gamelogs/gl2000_09.zip and unzip each to directories
#named "gl1970_79", "gl1980_89", etc, reachable from your working directory.

library(MASS) #For robust regression, can omit if you don't want to fit lines

#Column headers, Can get from www.dangoldstein.com/flash/bball/cnames.txt
#If you want all the headers, create from www.dangoldstein.com/flash/bball/glfields.txt
LabelsForScript=read.csv("cnames.txt", header=TRUE)

#Loop to get together all data
dat=NULL
for (baseyear in seq(1970,2000,by=10))
{
endyear=baseyear+9
#string manupulate pathnames
#reading in datafiles to one big dat goes here
for (i in baseyear:endyear)
{
mypath=paste("gl",baseyear,"_",substr(as.character(endyear),start=3,stop=4),"/GL",i,".TXT",sep="")
cat(mypath,"\n")
dat=rbind(dat,read.csv(mypath, col.names=LabelsForScript$Name))
}
}

rel=dat[,c("Date", "Home","Visitor","HomeGameNum","VisitorGameNum","HomeScore","VisitorScore")] #relevant set

rel$PrevVisitorGameNum=rel$VisitorGameNum-1
rel$PrevHomeGameNum=rel$HomeGameNum-1
rel$year=substr(rel$Date,start=1,stop=4)

rm(dat)

head(rel,20); summary(rel)

relmerge=merge(rel,rel,
by.x=c("Home","Visitor","year","HomeGameNum","VisitorGameNum"),
by.y=c("Home","Visitor","year","PrevHomeGameNum","PrevVisitorGameNum")
)

relmerge=relmerge[,c(
"Home", "Visitor", "Date.x", "HomeScore.x", "VisitorScore.x",
"Date.y", "HomeScore.y", "VisitorScore.y"
)]

relmerge$dx=relmerge$HomeScore.x-relmerge$VisitorScore.x
relmerge$dy=relmerge$HomeScore.y-relmerge$VisitorScore.y

#Eliminate ties
relmerge=with(relmerge,relmerge[(dx!=0) & (dy!=0),])

relmerge$reversal=-.5*(sign(relmerge$dx)*sign(relmerge$dy))+.5
relmerge$revsize=relmerge$reversal*pmin(abs(relmerge$dx),abs(relmerge$dy))
relmerge$winnerMarginVicG1=with(relmerge,sign(dx)*dx)
relmerge$winnerMarginVicG2=with(relmerge,sign(dx)*dy)

write.csv(relmerge,"reversals.csv")

mat=NULL
mat= data.frame(cbind(
ReversalSize=0:12,
Count=table(relmerge$revsize),
Prob=table(relmerge$revsize)/length(relmerge$revsize),
Per100k=table(relmerge$revsize)/length(relmerge$revsize)*100000
))
mat
cat("Probability previous winner wins again: ", mat[1,3],"\n")

##Graph Size of Reversal Frequency
png("SizeOfReversal.png",width=450)
plot(mat$ReversalSize,mat$Per100k,xlab="Size of Reversal",ylab="Frequency in 100,000 games",type="lines")
dev.off()

##Graph Chance of Winning Given Previous Win of Various Margins
png("WinGivenMargin.png",width=450)
brks=cut(relmerge$winnerMarginVicG1,breaks=c(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,27))
winsVsMargin=tapply(relmerge$winnerMarginVicG2>0,brks,mean)
names(winsVsMargin)=1:12
plot(winsVsMargin,ylim=c(0,1),axes=FALSE,xlab="Margin of Victory in First Game",ylab="Chance of Winning Second Game")
axis(1,1:12,labels=c("1","2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","11","12+"))
axis(2,seq(0,1,.1))
winModel=rlm(winsVsMargin~ as.numeric(names(winsVsMargin)))
abline(winModel)
dev.off()

##Graph Expected Margin of Victory Given Past Margin of Victory
png("MarVic.png",width=450)
mm2=rlm(relmerge$winnerMarginVicG2 ~ relmerge$winnerMarginVicG1)
plot(jitter(relmerge$winnerMarginVicG1),
jitter(relmerge$winnerMarginVicG2),xlab="Margin of Victory in Game 1",
ylab="Margin of Victory of Game 1 Winner in Game 2")
abline(mm2)
dev.off()

#Probability of team winning game two if they won game 1 by n points
winModel$coefficients[1]+winModel$coefficients[2]*20

#Expected margin of victory in game two given win in game 1
mm2$coefficients[1]+mm2$coefficients[2]*33

#Home Team Advantage: First game, second game
with(relmerge,{cat(mean(dx > 0), mean(dy > 0))})

#Home team advantage second game given home won first game
# Equals 1- Visitor p win second game given visitor lost the first game
with(relmerge[relmerge$dx > 0,],mean(dy > 0))

#Home team advantage second game given home lost first game
#Equals 1 - Visitor p win second game given visitor won first game
with(relmerge[relmerge$dx < 0,],mean(dy > 0))

April 29, 2010

Tipping heuristics

Filed in Gossip ,Ideas ,R ,Tools
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

INCREDIBLY SIMPLE CALCULATIONS MADE SIMPLE

Yes, we all know how to calculate 15% or 20% exactly, but it’s fun to use tipping heuristics and even more fun to make crowded graphs of how they compare to each other. (Sorry for the junky chart. Open for suggestions, in the words of Tom Waits.)

Here are a few tipping heuristics compared to a 15% baseline (which some claim to be 15-20% in NYC):

– Round to the nearest $10, then double the number on the left

– Round to the nearest $5 and throw in $1 for every $5

– Double the tax

There is also the notorious “double the number on the left”, which a friend’s father described as “sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.” DSN doesn’t like this one as it inflicts its damage on small checks, which often require as much waitstaff effort as large ones. If you’re a high roller, it looks pretty safe, however.

Whatever you do, please advocate smart heuristics instead of those undeservedly popular iPhone tipping apps.

What tipping rule of thumb do you use?

Note: Tax figure is New York City restaurant tax, which is something like 8.875%. I regret doing this in Excel instead of R, but it seemed like it would be faster and prettier.

April 21, 2010

2010 guide to the American Marketing Association job market interviews for aspiring professors

Filed in Conferences ,Gossip ,Jobs ,SJDM
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE AMA INTERVIEWS (2010 edition)

PhD students in Marketing, Psychology, and Economics are now gearing up to get their “packets” ready to mail out by the fourth of July in the hopes of lining up interviews at the annual AMA Summer Educator’s Conference. Each year DSN reprints this sort of “what to expect while you’re applying” guide, first published here by Dan Goldstein in 2005.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
I’ve seen the Marketing job market turn happy grad students into quivering masses of fear. I want to share experiences that I and others have contributed, and provide a bit advice to make the whole process less mysterious.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO ME?
I’ve been on the AMA job market twice (mid 2000s), the Psychology market once (late 90s). As a professor I’ve conducted 20 AMA interviews and been a part of dozens of hiring decisions. I’ve been on the candidate end of about 40 AMA interviews, and experienced numerous campus visits, face-to-face interviews, offers, and rejections. I’m an outsider to Marketing who went on the market older and with more experience than the average rookie (35 years of age, with 8 years of research scientist, postdoc, visiting scholar, and industry positions). I’ve hired many people for many academic posts, so I know both sides.

HOW TO GET INTO THE AMA JOB MARKET
First, at least a couple months before the conference, find where it will be. It’s called the American Marketing Association Summer Educator’s Conference. Strange name, I know. Insiders just call it “The AMA”. Get yourself a room in the conference hotel, preferably on the floor where the express elevator meets the local elevator for the upper floors. You’ll be hanging out on this floor waiting to change elevators anyway, so you might as well start there.

Next, get your advisor / sponsor to write a cover letter encouraging people to meet with you at AMA. It helps if this person is in Marketing. Get 1 or 2 other letters of recommendation, a CV, and some choice pubs. Put them in an envelope and mail them out to a friend of your sponsor at the desired school. It should look like the letter is coming from your sponsor, even though you are doing the actual assembly and mailing. Repeat this process a bunch of times. It’s a good idea to hit a school with 2 packets, 3 if you suspect they’re a little disorganized. Certainly send one to the recruiting coordinator (you might find their name on hiring announcements, which are often sent to your home department’s secretary) and one to your sponsor’s friend. Mail to schools regardless of whether they are advertising a position or not. This is academia: nobody knows anything. This means you may be sending 50 or more packets. You want to have them mailed by the 4th of July at the absolute latest.

THEN WHAT?
Wait to get calls or emails from schools wishing to set up AMA interviews with you. These calls may come in as late as one week before the conference. Often they come when you are sitting outside having a drink with friends. Some schools will not invite you for totally unknown reasons. You may get interviews from the top 10 schools and rejected from the 30th-ranked one. Don’t sweat it. Again, this is the land of total and absolute unpredictability that you’re entering into. Also, know that just because you get an interview doesn’t mean they have a job. Sometimes schools don’t know until the last minute if they’ll have funding for a post. Still, you’ll want to meet with them anyway. Other times, schools are quite certain they have two positions, but then later university politics shift and they turn out to have none.

After the AMA, you’ll hopefully get “fly-outs,” that is, offers to come and visit the campus and give a talk. This means you’ve made the top five or so. Most offers go down in December. There’s a second market that happens after all the schools realize they’ve made offers to the same person. Of course, some schools get wise to this and don’t make offers to amazing people who would have come. We need some kind of market mechanism to work out this part of the system.

THE “IT’S ALL ABOUT FRIENDSHIP” RULE
Keep in mind that you will leave this process with 1 or 0 jobs. Therefore, when talking to a person, the most likely thing is that he or she will not be your colleague in the future. You should then think of each opportunity as a chance to make a friend. You’ll need friends to collaborate, to get tenure, get grants, and to go on the market again if you’re not happy with what you get.

HOW DO YOU FIND OUT IN WHICH ROOM TO INTERVIEW?
The schools will leave messages for you telling you in which rooms your interviews will be. You’ll get calls, emails, and notes held for you at the hotel reception. Some schools will fail to get in touch with you so you have to try to find them. Many profs ask the hotel to make their room number public, but for some reason many hotel operators will still not give you the room number. Naturally having a laptop and internet connection allows for emailing of room numbers. Try to take care of this early on the first day.

HOW TO TREAT YOURSELF WHILE THERE
My sponsor gave me the advice of not going out at night and getting room service for breakfast and dinner. This worked for me. Also, the ridiculously high price of a room-service breakfast made me feel like I was sparing no expense, which I found strangely motivating.

HOW DO THE ACTUAL AMA INTERVIEWS GO?
At the pre-arranged time you will knock on their hotel room door. You will be let into a suite (p=.4) or a normal hotel room (p=.5, but see below). In the latter case, there will be professors with long and illustrious titles—people you once imagined as dignified—sitting on beds in their socks. The other people in the room may not look at you when you walk in because they will be looking for a precious few seconds at your CV. For at least some people in the room, this may be the first time they have concentrated on your CV. Yikes is right. Put the important stuff early in your CV so nobody can miss it.

THE SEAT OF HONOR
There will be one armchair in the room. Someone will motion towards the armchair, smile, and say, “You get the seat of honor!” This will happen at every school, at every interview, for three days. I promise.

THE TIME COURSE
There will be two minutes of pleasant chit-chat. They will propose that you talk first and they talk next. There will be a little table next to the chair on which you will put your flip book of slides. You will present for 30 minutes, taking their questions as they come. They will be very nice. When done, they will ask you if you have anything to ask them. You of course do not. You hate this question. You make something up. Don’t worry, they too have a spiel, and all you need to do is find a way to get them started on it. By the time they are done, it’s time for you to leave. The whole experience will feel like it went rather well.

PREDICTING IF YOU WILL GET A FLY-OUT
It’s impossible to tell from how it seems to have gone whether they will give you a fly-out or not. Again, this is the land of staggering and high-impact uncertainty. They might not invite you because you were too bad (and they don’t want you), or because you were too good (and they think they don’t stand a chance of getting you).

DO INTERVIEWS DEVIATE FROM THAT MODEL?
Yes.

Sometimes instead of a hotel room, they will have a private meeting room (p=.075). Sometimes they will have a private meeting room with fruit, coffee, and bottled water (p=.025). Sometimes, they will fall asleep while you are speaking (p=.05). Sometimes they will be rude to you (p=.025). Sometimes a key person will miss an early interview due to a hangover (p=.025). Sometimes, if it’s the end of the day, they will offer you alcohol (p=.18, conditional on it being the end of the day).

HOW YOU THINK THE PROCESS WORKS
The committee has read your CV and cover letter and looked at your pubs. They know your topic and can instantly appreciate that what you are doing is important. They know the value of each journal you have published in and each prize you’ve won. They know your advisor and the strengths she or he instills into each student. They ignore what they’re supposed to ignore and assume everything they’re supposed to assume. They’ll attach a very small weight to the interview and fly you out based on your record, which is the right thing to do according to a mountain of research on interviews.

HOW THE PROCESS REALLY WORKS
The interviewers will have looked at your CV for about one minute a couple months ago, and for a few seconds as you walked in the room. They will never have read your entire cover letter, and they will have forgotten most of what they did read. They could care less about your advisor and will get offended that you didn’t cite their advisor. They’ll pay attention to everything they’re supposed to ignore and assume nothing except what you repeat five times. Flouting 50 years of research in judgment and decision-making, they’ll attach a small weight to your CV and fly you out based on your interview.

IF ENGLISH IS NOT YOUR MOTHER TONGUE
Your ability to speak English well won’t get you a good job, but your inability to do so will eliminate you from consideration at every top school. Understand that business schools put a premium on teaching. If the interviewers don’t think you can communicate in the classroom, they’re probably not going to take a chance on you. If you are just starting out and your spoken English is shaky, my advice is to work on it as hard as you are working on anything else. Hire a dialect coach (expensive) or an english-speaking actor or improviser (cheaper) to work with you on your English pronunciation. In the Internet age, it’s quite easy to download samples of English conversational speech, for instance from podcasts, for free. It’s also very easy to get a cheap headset and a free audio recorder (like Audacity) with which to practice.

TWO WAYS TO GIVE YOUR SPIEL
1) The plow. You start and the first slide and go through them until the last slide. Stop when interrupted and get back on track.

2) The volley. Keep the slides closed and just talk with the people about your topic. Get them to converse with you, to ask you questions, to ask for clarifications. When you need to show them something, open up the presentation and show them just that slide.

I did the plow the first year and the volley the second year. I got four times more fly-outs the second year. Econometricians are working hard to determine if there was causality.

HOW TO ACT
Make no mistake, you are an actor auditioning for a part. There will be no energy in the room when you arrive. You have to be like Santa Claus bringing in a large sack of energy. The interviewers will be tired. They’ve been listening to people in a stuffy hotel room from dawn till dusk for days. If you do an average job, you lose: You have to be two standard deviations above the mean to get a fly-out. So audition for the part, and make yourself stand out. If you want to learn how actors audition, read Audition by Michael Shurtleff.

SOCIAL SKILLS MATTER
From the candidate’s point of view, everything is about the CV and the correctness of the mathematical proofs in the job market paper. However, for better or for worse, extra-academic qualities matter. Here are two examples. 1) The Social Lubricant factor. Departments get visitors all the time: guest speakers, visiting professors, job candidates, etc. Some departments are a bunch of folks who stare at their shoes when introduced to a new person. These departments have a real problem: they have nobody on board who can make visitors feel at ease, and sooner or later word starts to spread about how socially awkward the people at University X are. To fix such problems, departments sometimes hire socially-skilled types who know how to make people comfortable in conversation, and who know how to ask good questions during talks. Also, interviewers assume that people who can talk a good game will be star teachers. 2) The Soft Sell factor. Many people succeed in academia not because they are often right, but also because they are masters of making other people feel like they aren’t wrong. Defensiveness or determination to embarrass when responding to critique is a sure way to blow an interview.

HAVE A QUIRK
One of the biggest risks facing you is that you will be forgotten. Make sure the interviewers know something unusual about you. My quirk is that I worked internationally as an actor and theater director for over 10 years; I even had a bit part in a Conan O’Brien sketch on TV. It has nothing to do my research, but people always bring up this odd little fact when I do campus visits. Some bits of trivia are just more memorable than others.

DON’T GIVE UP
Never think it’s hopeless. Just because you’re not two SDs above the mean at the school of your dreams, it does not mean you’re not the dream candidate of another perfectly good school.

Many candidates don’t realize the following: The students are competing for schools but the schools are also competing for students. If you strike out, you can just try again next year. I know a person in Psychology who got 70 rejections in one year. I know a person in Marketing who was told he didn’t place in the top 60 candidates at the 20th ranked school. The subsequent year, both people got hired by top 5 departments. One of them is ridiculously famous!

RUMORS
Gossip can mess with your chances. Gossip that you are doing well can hurt you because schools will be afraid to invite you if they think you won’t come. Gossip that you are doing poorly can hurt you because schools that like you will be afraid to invite you if they think no one else does. Sometimes people will ask a prof at your school if you would come to their school, and the prof will then ask you. To heck with that. Just say that if they want to talk to you, they should talk with you directly.

The danger of rumors can be summed up by the following story. At ACR in 2003, I was having a beer with someone who confessed, “you know, my friend X at school Y told me that they want to hire you, but they’re afraid your wife won’t move to Z”. I was single.

SHARE YOUR OWN AMA HORROR STORIES
I am more than happy to publish anonymous AMA horror stories as part of this post. You can reach me at dan at dangoldstein dot com.

April 14, 2010

Get at least 12 observations before making a confidence interval?

Filed in Encyclopedia ,Ideas ,R
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

GET CONFIDENT ABOUT YOUR INTERVALS

Decision Science News is happy with its purchase of Statistical Rules of Thumb by Gerald van Belle many years ago. It’s full of examples in which math can surprise.

The first example in the book is titled “use at least 12 observations in constructing a confidence interval”. When people first hear this they think, nonsense, there’s nothing magic about the number twelve.  And then they think that confidence interval sizes have to do with the square root of the sample size, but that still doesn’t do it. Thinking harder, one realizes that the half-width confidence interval for a sample of size n is t(n-1,1-alpha)/sqrt(n). One plots this out for 90% and 95% CIs and one sees that the first intuition was right, there is nothing magic about 12, but the plot above sure does seem to stop dropping in width somewhere around there. Maybe 15 is a safer number. To make it easier to see, here are the points on the above graph from the value 15 and greater.

We love heuristics for statistics, but do not promote following rules of thumb without reflection. We do promote playing with such rules of thumb as a way to become aware of the tradeoffs one makes in designing experiments. To encourage such play, we post the R code behind the above graphs here.

R CODE
(Don’t know R yet? Learn by watching: R Video Tutorial 1, R Video Tutorial 2)


n=seq(3,30,.1)
alpha=.1
y90=qt(1-alpha/2,n-1)/sqrt(n)
alpha=.05
y95=qt(1-alpha/2,n-1)/sqrt(n)

plot.new()
plot(n,y90,type=”l”,xlim=c(0,30),ylim=c(0,3),ylab=”Half-Width Confidence Interval Size”, xlab=”Sample Size”)
lines(n,y95,type=”l”)
text(15,y95[which(n==15)]+.15,labels=”95%”)
text(15,y90[which(n==15)]-.15,labels=”90%”)

#second plot
plot.new()
a=min(which(n>=15))
b=max(which(n>=15))
plot(n[a:b],y90[a:b],type=”l”,xlim=c(0,30),ylim=c(0,3),ylab=”Half-Width Confidence Interval Size”, xlab=”Sample Size”)
lines(n[a:b],y95[a:b],type=”l”)
text(15,y95[which(n==15)]+.15,labels=”95%”)
text(15,y90[which(n==15)]-.15,labels=”90%”)

Update: After Arjan’s comment, I tried to figure out if Van Belle is Dutch. I didn’t figure that out, but I did learn that he keeps a lot of these tips on his site. There’s even one on the 12 observation rule and some information added by others, including this figure:

April 7, 2010

Four post-docs, two pre-docs

Filed in Jobs ,SJDM
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)

JOBS FOR THE PRE- AND POST-DOCTORAL OF THE WORLD

Those job-seeking, PhD-wielding, DSN-reading, decision-making researchers will be happy to know that we’ve got four post-doctoral positions, hot off the griddle. Have everything but the PhD? We have two pre-doctoral opportunities for you this week as well.

– – –

University of Colorado-Boulder

The University of Colorado-Boulder anticipates hiring a post-doctoral research associate in the interdisciplinary Center for Research on Consumer Financial Decision Making. Basic research in judgment and decision making, psychology, consumer research, and behavioral economics can inform our understanding of financial decisions such as choosing a mortgage, saving for retirement, decumulating savings, using credit cards, and paying for health care. The Center will conduct basic research and more applied work to inform public policy.

This would be two-year position, with a start date of August 1, 2010. The associate will conduct research with Professor John Lynch in the Leeds School of Business and with other colleagues in business and psychology.

http://leeds.colorado.edu/Directory/interior.aspx?id=8054

The associate will collaborate on projects relating to the roles of comprehension, attention, affect, and intertemporal planning on financial decision making. One area of focus will be how soon-to-be retirees make decisions about annuitization of savings. Another focus is decision aids for complex financial decisions such as choosing a mortgage, taking into account theories of the psychology of decision-making.

The ideal candidate would be an accomplished psychology PhD interested in seeking a faculty position in consumer research and marketing. Marketing departments at most leading business schools have a history hiring psychology PhDs whose work has implications for consumer behavior. They seek scholars who can publish in the top journals both in marketing / consumer research and allied basic disciplines. They also require that these scholars demonstrate that they can teach effectively in a business school setting.

This associateship is designed to help the scholar achieve these goals. The Associate will work in the lab at the Center for Research on Consumers’ Financial Decision Making and in the psychology department and collaborate on research aimed at journals in both psychology and consumer research. If so desired, the associate can teach one undergraduate section of marketing research per year in the Leeds School of Business under Lynch’s supervision for additional salary.

This position is open to candidates with behavioral research experience, data analysis and modeling skills, and training in judgment and decision-making, social psychology, cognitive psychology, or a related

Discipline. Candidate should have recently earned PhD or who are expecting their doctorate in 2010, on a topic relevant to issues in financial decision-making, broadly defined. To get a sense of the scope of such topics, please see the website for the First Annual Boulder Summer Conference on Consumers’ Financial Decision Making, http://cfdmc.colorado.edu/ including the conference program.

Application materials should be should be submitted online to http://www.jobsatcu.com/. Click on Search Postings and enter the job posting number 809691. Applications should include a CV, two letters of recommendation, reprints of published papers, and a cover letter. The cover letter should describe your research interests and expertise, your computer and data analysis skills, and should point out any connections to the research programs of Lynch. The Recruiting Committee Chair is John Lynch (john.g.lynch at colorado.edu), the Ted G. Anderson Professor at CU.

Review of applications will start April 1st and continue until April 30th.

The University of Colorado at Boulder is committed to diversity and equality in education and employment.

– – –

Carnegie Mellon University

Carnegie Mellon University is seeking candidates for a Post-doctoral Research Associate for a large-scale field study examining consumer response to enhanced methods for controlling electricity use at home. The research team includes psychology, economics, and engineering. Duties will include participation in research design and execution, supervision of data files and analyses, report writing, and coordination with electric utility partners.

Requirements: PhD in psychology or related behavioral science; relevant research experience. Project begins March 2010. Supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Carnegie Mellon University.

Applications must include a CV, an example of written work, and a cover letter indicating your related experiences and interest in the position. Applications should be sent by email to: lave at cmu.edu

– – –

Michigan State University

We are looking for a postdoc researcher to work on a project on the neural mechanisms of decision making. This is a joint position between the Neuroimaging of Perception and Attention Laboratory (PI: Taosheng Liu) and the Laboratory of Cognitive and Decision Sciences (PI: Timothy Pleskac). The research project will use mathematical models to fit choice behavioral data and fMRI to measure brain activity in decision tasks. We aim to combine these approaches to probe the fundamental mechanisms of decision making.

The ideal candidate should have a strong background in mathematical models of decision making and/or a strong background in system/ cognitive neuroscience. Prior experience with mathematical modeling, fMRI, and strong programming skills (e.g., C/C++, Matlab) are highly preferred. Duties include designing and implementing experiments, data collection and analysis, and writing and presenting results. Our labs are affiliated with the Cognition and Cognitive Neuroscience program in the Department of Psychology, the Cognitive Science Program, and the Neuroscience Program at Michigan State University. The candidate will receive further training in modeling and fMRI methodologies, as well as have opportunities to interact with a diverse body of scientists in cognitive and neural science. A recent PhD in a relevant discipline (e.g., psychology, neuroscience, computer science) is required and salary will commensurate with experience. The appointment is for one year with the possibility for renewal for two years pending availability of funds. The targeted starting date is summer/early fall of 2010.

Interested candidate should send a C.V., pdfs of representative publications, a brief statement of research, and names and addresses of at least two referees to either Tim Pleskac (pleskact at msu.edu) or Taosheng Liu (tsliu at msu.edu). Informal inquiries are also welcome. Review of candidates will begin May 1 and will continue until the position is filled.

For more information see the following websites:
Tim Pleskac’s lab page: http://www.msu.edu/~pleskact
Taosheng Liu’s lab page: http://psychology.msu.edu/liulab

– – –

Applied Biomathematics

Applied Biomathematics (www.ramas.com/research.htm) anticipates an opening for a one- or two-year post doctoral position for a mathematical psychologist working in the area of risk, ambiguity and uncertainty in decision making. The project addresses risk communication from a biological perspective (see Strategies for Risk Communication: Evolution, Evidence, Experience, 2008, edited by Tucker et al., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol. 1128). Post docs at Applied Biomathematics commonly go on to academic appointments. The project will be directed by Scott Ferson (www.ramas.com/sferson.htm) and Christian Luhmann of Stony Brook University (www.psychology.sunysb.edu/cluhmann-/luhmann). Please send curriculum vitae and a writing sample to admin at ramas.com.

– – –

Pre-doc specials: University of Basel

2 Doctoral Positions in Psychology at the University of Basel, Switzerland

The Center for Cognitive and Decision Sciences (www.cds.unibas.ch – headed by Ralph Hertwig) in the Department of Psychology at the University of Basel is seeking two new Ph.D. students for the following projects:

A) Executive Search Processes and Decision Making in Long-Term Memory

This research will focus on the processes of encoding and retrieval in long-term memory, and how executive processes dynamically guide search in memory representations similar to the way animals search for food in space. Interested applicants should have a Master’s degree in Psychology and an interest in cognitive modeling and experimental approaches to memory.

B) Dialectical Bootstrapping: A New Paradigm to Improve Individual Judgment

This research focuses on the process of creating “the wisdom of crowds” within the mind of a single person by using “dialectical bootstrapping”—averaging a person’s two estimates so that errors are likely to cancel each other out. Interested applicants should have a Master’s degree in Psychology and an interest in cognitive modeling and judgment and decision making.

Applicants should send a CV, a letter of interest and two letters of recommendation to Dr. Thomas Hills at thomas.hills at unibas.ch (for project A) or Dr. Stefan Herzog at stefan.herzog at unibas.ch (for project B). Deadline for applications is April 30, 2010. The position is available immediately.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/143186839/