Economics and similar, for the sleep-deprived

A subtle change has been made to the comments links, so they no longer pop up. Does this in any way help with the problem about comments not appearing on permalinked posts, readers?

Update: seemingly not

Update: Oh yeah!


Thursday, March 27, 2008

 
Calm down, Danny me boy, sit down in comfy chair and let's all brew up a nice pot of Shut The Fuck Up

Still pretty angry, but long and outraged lists of things tend to dilute rather than reinforce the impact, and listing all the errors I can find would probably take me over the "fair use" limit for quoted material. There is an awful lot of statistically illiterate crap in Megan McArdle's piece in The Atlantic, and some laughably one-sided presentation[1] but I'm going to concentrate on two sentences.

Yet though its compromises made it particularly unreliable, the Lancet study remains the most widely known. Its conclusions were the earliest and most shocking of the scientific estimates and thus generated enormous media attention. The more-careful counts that followed prompted fewer, and less prominent, articles.

McArdle is here referring to the 2006 Johns Hopkins study (Burnham et al), which she believes to have been falsified by the WHO study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and which found a much lower rate of violent death (although a correspondingly higher rate of non-violent death; Lancet hacks seem to regard this fact as something that can just be brushed away in what I call "Greengrocers' Arithmetic"[2]).

However, of course, Burnham et al (2006) was not "the earliest" such study. It was (and this is not exactly a little-known fact) a follow-up to Roberts et al (2004), the original Lancet study. And, as is abundantly clear to anyone who has read the study and can multiply, the rate of violent death found in Roberts et al (2004) is very nearly exactly the same as the rate of violent death in the WHO study.

The first Lancet and the NEJM studies confirm each other on violent death rates, and all three studies give a fairly similar answer for total death-rates post-invasion (the WHO study does not calculate a rate of "excess deaths" from non-violent causes, but barring really quite strange correlations in the data, simple subtraction of the death rates gives a consistent answer). So the two possibilities here are that either the three studies are all broadly confirming each other on the total death rate, and something about Burnham et al (2006) caused respondents to classify a greater proportion of the deaths as violent[3], or that Burnham et al (2006) is a complete outlier because its violent death count is so high, and the fact of a very high nonviolent death rate in both Roberts et al (2004) and the WHO study is just some sort of coincidence.

But this is by the by. The important point here is that Megan McArdle, in what she believed to be her definitive, highly researched article, appearing in the print version of The Atlantic, still managed to get confused between the two Lancet studies and claim that "the earliest" study was falsified by the NEJM article. Nobody caught this mistake between copy and print, but it wasn't anyone else's job to.

I'm astounded. McArdle has apparently recanted on previous support for the war, and has apparently also quietly given up on a number of the astonishingly stupid arguments she made about Burnham et al (2006) at the time - in particular the "mythical Central Death Certificate Repository". So it is difficult to see why she might have wnated to write this article (which has very little to say about the studies themselves - half of it is boilerplate pop-science versions of Tversky's anchoring hypothesis with very little relevance to anything), as she no longer has any particular point of view to defend. As far as I can see, the only purpose is to try and lay the ghost of the fearful ass she made of herself back at the time, and re-establish some sort of credibility on the subject, while whining about how nasty everyone else was. The vanity is really quite overwhelming. And even in that article, she couldn't even be bothered to keep the Lancet studies straight. And such a person, such a journalist, someone with such a lack of self-awareness, has the outright temerity to try and psycho-analyse people like me and Tim Lambert, and to claim that we rejected the obvious truthiness of the NEJM violent death count because we were disappointed to find that 450,000 Iraqis had not really died? That we were lost in partisanship of Les Roberts and could not find it in our hearts to celebrate? I find it really rather disgusting.

[1] Most notably, trying to sound all knowledgable by running through the Hicks-Rei critique of Burnham et al's interviewing protocols and potential sources of bias in the subjective element in selecting house for interview, but somehow neglecting to mention that the WHO decided not to carry out any interviews at all in Anbar province because it was too dangerous and then made a "statistical correction". In actual fact, the correction made to the WHO study was about the best way you could have massaged the data and the article itself is quite upfront about what they've done and the uncertainty it might introduce, but to not even mention it is quite ludicrous.

[2] Because it tries to compare apples to oranges, picks cherries and ends up with a lemon.

[3] Not at all necessarily incorrectly - there are very good reasons to believe that in Roberts et al (carried out much more recently after the war) and the WHO study (carried out by government personnel who identifed themselves as such), respondents had a significant incentive to misclassify death squad killings or deaths of family members who were part of the insurgency.

Labels: ,


10 comments this item posted by the management 3/27/2008 02:52:00 PM


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?




Links:

Bitch : Lab
Aaronovitch Watch
Balkanalysis
Perfect.co.uk
Maxspeak
Brad Delong
The Robert Vienneau blog

Political and philosophical heroes

Subcomandante Marcos
Will Rogers
Boris Vian
The English Svejk

RSS Feed:
This seems to matter to a lot of people

If you liked this "Daniel Davies" website, you might be interested in

"Danux", the web developer
The martial artist (and fan of extremely annoying Flash intros) from Blackburn
The Welsh political journalist
A Scouse computer programmer who collects Soviet cameras
"Danimal", the heavy metal drummer
Canada's finest recorder of radio jingles
More of the same, at the Guardian
A tailor's in Lampeter where Jimmy Carter once bought a hat
An advertising man who has written a novel about dogging (I think we sometimes get each other's email)
An award-winning facilities manager in Dubai
The son of the guitarist from the Kinks Update: he is apparently "balls-out motherfucking shit-dicked exxxstatic" to be included on a Kerrang magazine giveaway CD of Iron Maiden covers, which is nice.
"Fritz Gretel" from the Ramones film "Rock 'n' Roll High School"
The former presenter of the leading politics talk radio show on the Isle of Man, now a business change manager in the Manx government secretary's office
An aquarium curator in Sussex who keeps on scoring home runs like this (this is the first stable link I've found, but he is constantly kicking ass in acquarial terms)

If you didn't like this "Daniel Davies" website, then don't give up on the Daniel Davies industry completely!

An American "Christian Political Analyst" who has the same name as me
A student at Patrick Henry College
these two might be the same guy ...
"Scatter", the deceased Liberian gangster
A naked man stuck in a chimney in Wigan
A thug in Barrow



This blog has been going downhill since ...

August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
November 2003
December 2003
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
December 2012
February 2013
April 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
March 2014
April 2014