Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve Heard's avatar

Terry, I agree in principle that there are "better" approaches than ANOVA etc. for many kinds of data. But in practice, I think we greatly overestimate how often this will make any difference. Yes, ANOVA makes lots of assumptions, and we love to wring our hands about that. But it turns out to be extraordinarily robust to most violations of those assumptions. So given that, there's a lot to be said for approaches that are simple, well understood, and can be applied broadly. I don't think the situation is as dire as you suggest!

Expand full comment
Jessie Oehrlein's avatar

Something that's sometimes frustrating to me as a statistics educator is that the stats ed community has made at least some meaningful progress on this front -- simulation-based inference is pretty core to how a lot of us teach algebra-based intro-level statistics now, even if approaches of more full-scale change like Danny Kaplan's book (https://dtkaplan.github.io/Lessons-in-statistical-thinking/) haven't caught on -- and yet we seem to have had little success in communicating that approach & set of tools to folks teaching stats in cognate disciplines.

So I guess what I mean here is: I think what we really need is better ways for these conversations to happen across fields, so that it's not happening separately in stats, bio, psych, etc. at all different paces, starting from zero every time.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts