The Font of Wisdom
Previous post: 1964 predictions about the year 2000
Next post: Are health care costs really slowing down?
by Alex Tabarrok on August 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm in Data Source, Science, The Arts, Uncategorized | Permalink
Previous post: 1964 predictions about the year 2000
Next post: Are health care costs really slowing down?
Something about this piece sets of my BS detector. Can we really reliably distinguish the “effects” of these fonts, especially the ones that look fairly similar (i.e. not Comic Sans)? What, exactly, is the hypothesis being tested?
I’d like to see what Andrew Gelman would say about this:
http://andrewgelman.com/2007/11/statistical_cha/
The weighting factor ratio 1:3:5 is much larger than the expected variance of the strong vs slight 1:1.5:1.4 so ends up skewing what seem to be random fluctuations.
I’m not sure from the article what specifically the given p-value is testing. To my math all of the responses are well within chance — and the subsequent strong vs slight measurement errors are correlated with the agree-disagree measurement errors.
Since Baskerville happens to have the one of the highest number of agrees (but still within chance) and one of the lowest number of disagrees (but still within chance) and that the strongly agree/disagree are going to be correlated with those statistical errors, hence Baskerville has the highest number of strongly agrees and lowest number of strongly disagrees — and then multiplying that effect by 5! — you’re going to get it at the top and bottom.
Basically all the agrees should fall within 4628 +/- 80 (which is 4548 to 4707) 68% of the time and only two results violate this bound by +8 and -23 which are <0.5% of the mean.
I'd say this is a case of improper statistics in breaking out the strongs vs slights.
Right, this is a dataset which cries out for ordinal statistics, not the ANOVAs based on arbitrary scales that Errol Morris’s statistical consultants performed. (A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test perhaps?) I don’t have time to do the calculations but just eyeballing the raw numbers, those look like small differences to me. “Small” both in the sense of quite possibly lacking statistical significance as Jason calculated, and also in Andrew Gelman’s sense, as cited by ed above.
The article says that “Georgia” is the font used by the NYT. This on an NYT website. Do you think the sample population might be a little bit skewed?
For what it’s worth, I noticed that MR uses a number of different fonts. Is this a hedging strategy, or just random noise?
+1, but can you believe this comment because it was written in sans serif?
Secret weapon of the Chicago school via the JPE.
How do they know its the font of wisdom/truth and not the font of optimism? (Or something else relateed to the 1 question he used)
You mean typeface, not “font.”
It may just be that for a given font size in points, Baskerville looks smaller and is definitely harder to read. Does the extra time or effort needed to read it result in readers accepting the message more readily?
Comments on this entry are closed.