Reddit mentions: The best statistics books

> 1) I was in a school like that. I didn't join. No one hassled me. No one ever said anything to me. The really pro-union people kept to themselves and the vast majority did whatever and could actually care less.

That's good they didn't hassle you. Olof I decided to join a union I would lay back in the shadows and not be adamantly going on tangents why people should join. Glad you weren't harassed. During student teaching there was a teacher without fail that every Friday would wear her union shirt.

>2) Probably not, coming from a perspective of Power. Because it is so large and controls all of CPS, I doubt it would ever want to be split up -- even if those smaller unions are basically CPS lite.

Great point, probably.

>3) I know. Tell me about it. It did all across the state (WI). Most of the old teachers that were stuck in their ways were either asked not to come back by the district; felt like they had to retire or else they would lose all of their benefits (I'm still unclear where this hysteria came from); and, more district flexibility allowed districts to better craft budgets reflective of their priorities. It was a good 5-year window to get hired here.

I remember several years ago it had made news. Is hiring better now? I know you got a lot of flack as a state about the education stuff.

>4) There are many possible answers for this. One answer I've seen is that more conservative-minded people are in professions that typically pay more (accounting, business (management), etc.). Another answer is that that conservative ethos of conserving your wealth (being thrifty) is something harped on if you grow up in a conservative household and it is, therefore, something carried one through one's life. And there are other reasons but you should avoid blanket statements because, actually, if you (taking Republican and Democrat to be proxies for conservative-liberal, respectively) measure it, you'd see that Democrats have slightly, on average, a higher income. Believe it or not, wealth at the top quintile isn't a really good predictor of political ideology. It's actually pretty even split between R and D. In the lower quintile, you'd find a stronger correlation between income and D or R: the poorer one is, the more likely they are to vote D. Yet, a better way to examine that would be racial. There you'd see a clear split between black low income (D) and white low income (R). This whole idea of wealth impacting voting habits and ideology is something political scientists are trying to still better understand. One of the better books, written for the general public, on this subject is (still) (Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State)[https://www.amazon.com/Red-State-Blue-Rich-Poor/dp/0691143935].

Thanks for that in depth answer, I'll be sure to look into that more.

Poor Americans are more liberal than rich Americans in general. But there are distinct patterns of political preferences by income among racial groups and geography. Poor Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, as do poor Whites, except in the South where poor White's preferences are a little murkier. Andrew Gelman does a good job of explaining this in Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State.

The book's paradoxical conclusion is this: Rich states and poor people vote Democratic, while poor states and rich people vote Republican. The way to reconcile the contradiction is that in red states income is a much more robust predictor of your voting habits than in blue states. So, in Connecticut, a rich blue state, income does a less good job of predicting the voting habits of wealthy and middle class voters, many of whom vote Democratic despite their wealth. In Alabama, a poor red state, the votes of people who have above-average incomes are very well predicted by their incomes. And rich, white, Southerners are the most conservative people in the United States. In Mississippi in 2012, Obama only got 10% of whites in the state to vote for him. If you went to a polling station in a rich, white suburb of Atlanta, or Tallahassee, or Jackson, I'd guess that well over 95% of people would be voting Republican. Why? Gelman goes into the nuances in his book, but it has a lot to do with religion and values which are more important to rich Republicans than any other group.

Another interesting finding that comes out of people researching voting habits by demographic characteristics is the existence of two kinds of whites. White people's voting habits basically differ based on what side of the Mason-Dixon they live on. Southern Whites are extremely conservative, whereas Northerners basically split the vote between Democrats and Republicans. That's why Republicans handily win southern states with the country's largest minority populations.


TL;DR The poorest 10% of Americans are more liberal than the richest in general as measured by preference for the Democratic Party. This relationship is less strong outside the South

Source:
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State

Gelman's research

Crooked Timber

I've never read Games People Play, and psychology is not my area of expertise. But, to answer your question, that is not it.

You could read a number of different pop-psych books and each will give you a different perspective. The human psyche is extremely complex, and social interaction is even more complex. It can/should never be boiled down to one idea that supposedly explains the majority of human interaction. Be sure not to take books like this too seriously: Most people do not consider themselves to be "playing a game" whenever they are interacting with others.

My education is not in psychology, but if you are looking for further reading I can recommend some of my favorite books from my undergrad sociology education: (IMO any understanding of human interaction must have both a sociological and psychological component)

Invitation to Sociology by Peter L Berger

Sociological Insight by Randall Collins

The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckmann

These were required reading in a 4000-level class, but this particular professor also assigns them to his 1000-level intro-soc class (which is why he doesn't teach intro soc often). They can be dense, but they are very interesting and definitely worth reading if you are at all interested in sociology.

edit: I don't want to hate on a book I have never read too much, so I will say this: Whenever you read a psych/soc book, especially if it is written for a wide audience, remember to take everything you read with a grain of salt. You may find truth, but you may also find a very smart author who is too caught up in his own work to see the limitations of his theories.

1. I was in a school like that. I didn't join. No one hassled me. No one ever said anything to me. The really pro-union people kept to themselves and the vast majority did whatever and could actually care less.
   
   
2. Probably not, coming from a perspective of Power. Because it is so large and controls all of CPS, I doubt it would ever want to be split up -- even if those smaller unions are basically CPS lite.
   
   
3. I know. Tell me about it. It did all across the state (WI). Most of the old teachers that were stuck in their ways were either asked not to come back by the district; felt like they had to retire or else they would lose all of their benefits (I'm still unclear where this hysteria came from); and, more district flexibility allowed districts to better craft budgets reflective of their priorities. It was a good 5-year window to get hired here.
   
   
4. There are many possible answers for this. One answer I've seen is that more conservative-minded people are in professions that typically pay more (accounting, business (management), etc.). Another answer is that that conservative ethos of conserving your wealth (being thrifty) is something harped on if you grow up in a conservative household and it is, therefore, something carried one through one's life. And there are other reasons but you should avoid blanket statements because, actually, if you (taking Republican and Democrat to be proxies for conservative-liberal, respectively) measure it, you'd see that Democrats have slightly, on average, a higher income. Believe it or not, wealth at the top quintile isn't a really good predictor of political ideology. It's actually pretty even split between R and D. In the lower quintile, you'd find a stronger correlation between income and D or R: the poorer one is, the more likely they are to vote D. Yet, a better way to examine that would be racial. There you'd see a clear split between black low income (D) and white low income (R). This whole idea of wealth impacting voting habits and ideology is something political scientists are trying to still better understand. One of the better books, written for the general public, on this subject is (still) (Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State)[https://www.amazon.com/Red-State-Blue-Rich-Poor/dp/0691143935].

I strongly recommend this. It not only answers your questions, but does it in a graceful, informative and beautiful way.

> What is a book that really stood out to you?

The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi


> What's an article or an opinion that you found interesting or memorable?

Paul Meehl's work showing that the evidence for using statistical prediction over clinical prediction is quite substantial.
article
[book](
http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Versus-Statistical-Prediction-Theoretical/dp/0963878492/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408984946&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+meehl)

> What was a reddit post that you found interesting or insightful

BlakeClass explaining the dark side of having money

> What subreddits do you like to subscribe to to expand your horizons?

Specifically to expand my horizons? worldnews and random

> Any other sorts of wordy recommendations?

Always make progress.

> Furthemore, why did the South shift from being a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one?

There have been plenty of threads here about the Southern Strategy and the partisan realignment. The tl;dr is that the Republican Party appealed to racism against blacks and opposition to civil rights among southern white voters. Those voters, previously strongly Democratic voters, switched to supporting the Republican Party, where they remain to this day. (For an academic look, you can see here.)

> Why is it that after '92 the Northeast and West coast became consistently Democratic, and the South and midwest become consistently Republican?

It's largely a function of population demographics. Another tl;dr is that the coasts are far more urbanized than the South and midwest. Highly urban areas tend to be more Democratic-leaning. Essentially, blue states are blue because they're disproportionately urban, while red states are red because they're disproportionately rural. Even in states like California, you see large swaths of Republican counties because they're heavily rural areas.

As for the central thrust of your question, Andrew Gelman would likely argue that, even though rich people tend to vote Republican quite overwhelmingly, 1) there are far more poor people in those blue states, and poor people tend to vote Democratic, and 2) rich people on the coasts care more about social issues that Democrats favor. In general, I think it's just a function of population demographics.

This sub tends to focus on statistical topics that are a bit more math intensive. But there's definitely stuff you can learn about descriptive statistics and visualization that doesn't require a strong math background. I just did a quick query on Amazon and found a couple of well reviewed books you may want to check out.

https://www.amazon.com/Excelling-Data-Descriptive-Statistics-Using/dp/1491029129

https://www.amazon.com/Storytelling-Data-Visualization-Business-Professionals/dp/1119002257

There is also good stuff on Khan Academy. Pausing when he introduces a problem and trying to work it out yourself is a good way to go.

What kind of work are you hoping to use some basic stats in?

To supplement and expand, this book is a great read, with very clearly presented data, that describes and explores this phenomenon.

> It is truly an epic fail

I agree with you there about NCLB. Similarly, state level efforts at test based accountability are also largely failing. Besides NCLB, many states have HS graduation tests which have increased drop-out rates and done nothing to improve achievement or improve learning.

However, your comment here doesn't seem to jibe with your prior comment, "There is nothing wrong using exam as end all measure of students intellectual capability as long as exams are genuinely difficult."

This article is in fact arguing quite strongly against using tests as an "end all measure" since such tests, however carefully designed, can only tell us a very modest amount of what students learn. Moreover, we're learned that attaching high-stakes to such tests, no matter how carefully designed, corrupts learning. Moreover, there's no evidence that the difficulty of an exam has any bearing on how useful the exam is. Tests are a measuring device and need to be designed for particular purposes. They all have limitations and should never be used as the "end all measure". I strongly encourage you to read Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us or The Myths of Standardized Tests: Why They Don't Tell You What You Think They Do.

This is false. There's a very good book on this subject called Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. The basic conclusion (presented after much data analysis in the book) is that on average, republicans are richer than democrats. In most of the country, poor people vote democratic and richer people vote republican. However, on the coasts, both poor and rich people tend to vote democratic.

It's ok if you aren't an expert on psychopathology, that's what your research, didactics, and experiential training are for.

If you're looking for reading material, focus less on the DSM and the disorders themselves, and look more at critical perspectives of psychological assessment and diagnosis. In particular, look for Paul Meehl's work, especially that focused on clinical intuition vs. statistical prediction.

https://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Versus-Statistical-Prediction-Theoretical/dp/0963878492

I'd also recommend Scott Lilienfeld's articles. They're all great and he's an invaluable skeptic for our field.

If you read and grasp this material, you'll be head and shoulders above your peers with years of clinical experience or those who just focus on learning categorization and symptomatology of disorders.

What many don't realize about surveys is there is a ton of research that has gone into finding out how to get the best data. This research spans incentives, wording, timing, visual design, etc. Here are some resources that are must reads for anyone trying to legitimately gather survey data: Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys, Survey Methodology, & Survey Research Methods.

There is a book written in the 90's that detailed all these statistics called "Social Stratification in the United States" and it came with an incredible poster that illustrated this. I bought the book just to get the poster. It is so out of date I would love to see a new version of it. If you like this video you will find it even more shocking seeing it as a poster - a constant reminder of this inequality.

Found the poster. You can get it for $18

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1595581553

Dude, if you love that you gotta check out "United States Census Figures Back to 1630." Fucking intense.

you can check the following books

1. Bayesian Methodology: An overview with the help of R software: Tool for data science professionals
   
   https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07QCHTR54
   
   
2. Essentials of Bio-Statistics: An overview with the help of Software
   
   https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GRBXX7D

Entire books have been written on this subject--here is a good place to start

For me, I felt it was worth the $80, but you can find it cheaper ($40), and on amazon it has the look inside feature which should give you the gist of the book.

https://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Statistics-Using-IBM-SPSS/dp/1526419521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=discovering+statistics+with+andy+field&qid=1557907822&s=gateway&sr=8-4

Just found this new book:

Social Stratification in the United States: The American Profile Poster by Stephen J. Rose

Okay, I was trying to link the textbook but it wasn’t working. Here’s the link if you want it: https://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Beginner′s-Guide-Robert-Stinerock/dp/1473924901/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=9781473924895&qid=1567636291&s=books&sr=1-3

Idk if it is this one. If the equation citation (4.3) refers to Chapter 4, that doesn't have anything in here with that joke; I'm looking at this one. Might be one of his other ones

You could also try this one if all you want at this stage is to get a general overview or understanding of statistics https://www.amazon.co.uk/Statistics-Without-Psychology-Christine-Dancey/dp/1292128852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510512976&sr=8-1&keywords=stats+without+maths+for+psychology

This book, though I can't find any way to read that part online

Looking for "Is That a Fact? A Field Guide to Statistical and Scientific Information," 2nd Edition
by Mark Battersby

https://www.amazon.com/That-Fact-Statistical-Scientific-Information/dp/1554812445/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521174987&sr=8-1&keywords=9781554812448

Will Pay $5 US.

I have Paperback but need PDF to convert to text so I can make MS Word read it to me.

I had to re-teach myself stats for my current position since really hadn’t used it since grad school. I am not a statistical expert but I recommend Discovering Statistics Using R . If you don’t know R, it will help you kill two birds with one stone. If you are looking into spatial statistics, look for An Introduction to R for spatial analysis and mapping and this Modern Spatial Econometrics in Practice