You are on page 1of 90

# Frontiers of

Computational Journalism
Columbia Journalism School
Week 10: Drawing Conclusions from Data
December 4, 2015

Data doesn't speak for itself

Interpreting Data

Data + Context => Meaning

Interpretation
There may be more than one defensible interpretation of a data
set.
Our goal in this class is to rule out indefensible interpretations.

Data interpretation strategy

Understand the quantification process
Quantified randomness and uncertainty
Models, especially causal models
Interpretation: context, cognitive biases, generalizability
Method of competing hypotheses
Communication methods

The question comes first. It tells you what data you need.

Quantification
The process that creates data.

1940 U.S. census enumerator
instructions

2010 U.S. census race and ethnicity
questions

Intentional or unintentional problems

Interview the Data

Where do these numbers come from?
Who recorded them?
How?
How do we know it is complete?
What are the demographics?
Is this the right way to quantify this issue?
Who is not included in these figures?
Who is going to look bad or lose money as a result of these numbers?
Is the data consistent from day to day, or when collected by different people?
Is the data consistent with other sources? Who has already analyzed it?
Does it have known flaws? Are there multiple versions?

2004 Election, in Florida, recounted by Matt Waite in Handling
There were more than 47,000 Floridians on the felon purge list.
Of them, only 61—that’s one tenth of one percent—were
Hispanic in a state where 17 percent of the population claimed
Hispanic as their race.
...
In the state voter registration database, Hispanic is a race. In the
state’s criminal history database, Hispanic is an ethnicity. When
matched together, and with race as a criteria for matching, the
number of matches involving Hispanic people drops to near
zero.

Randomness
Quantified uncertainty

Margin of Error

The probabilities of polling
If Romney is two points ahead of Obama, 49% to 47%, in a poll with 5.5%
margin of error, how likely is it that Obama is actually leading?

Given:
R = 49%, O=47%
MOE(R) = MOE(O) = ±5.5%

How likely is it that Obama is actually ahead?
Let D = R-O = 2%. This is an observed value, and if we polled the whole
population, we would see a true value D'. We want to know probability that
Obama is actually ahead, i.e. P(D' < 0)
Margin of error on D ≈ MOE(R) + MOE(D) = ±11% because they are almost
completely dependent, R+O ≈ 100.
For better analysis, see
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
Gives MOE(D) = 10.8%

Std. dev of D ≈ MOE(D)/1.96 as MOE is quoted as 95% confidence interval
= ±5.5%.
Z-score of -D = -2%/5.5% = -0.36
P(z<-0.35) = 0.36, so 36% chance a Romney is not ahead, or about 1 in 3.

Which one is random?

One star per box – not random

Two dice: non-uniform distribution

Two principles of randomness
1. Random data has way patterns in it way more often than you think.
2. This problem gets much more extreme when you have less data.

Is something causing cancer?

Cancer rate per county. Darker = greater incidence of cancer.

Which of these is real data?

Global temperature record

How likely is it that the temperature won't increase over next decade?

From The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver

The Howland Will Trial

It is conceivable that the 14 elderly people who are reported to
have died soon after receiving the vaccination died of other
causes. Government officials in charge of the program claim
that it is all a coincidence, and point out that old people drop
dead every day. The American people have even become
familiar with a new statistic: Among every 100,000 people 65 to
75 years old, there will be nine or ten deaths in every 24-hour
period under most normal circumstances.
Even using the official statistic, it is disconcerting that three
elderly people in one clinic in Pittsburgh, all vaccinated within
the same hour, should die within a few hours thereafter. This
tragedy could occur by chance, but the fact remains that it is
extremely improbable that such a group of deaths should take
place in such a peculiar cluster by pure coincidence.
- New York Times editorial, 14 October 1976

Assuming that about 40 percent of elderly Americans were
vaccinated within the first 11 days of the program, then about 9
million people aged 65 and older would have received the
vaccine in early October 1976. Assuming that there were 5,000
clinics nationwide, this would have been 164 vaccinations per
clinic per day. A person aged 65 or older has about a 1-in-7,000
chance of dying on any particular day; the odds of at least three
such people dying on the same day from among a group of 164
patients are indeed very long, about 480,000 to one against.
However, under our assumptions, there were 55,000
opportunities for this “extremely improbable” event to occur—
5,000 clinics, multiplied by 11 days. The odds of this coincidence
occurring somewhere in America, therefore, were much
- Nate Silver, The Signal and the Noise, Ch. 7 footnote 20

Looking at executives' trading in the week before their companies made news, the
Journal found that one of every 33 who dipped in and out posted average returns of
more than 20% (or avoided 20% downturns) in the following week. By contrast, only
one in 117 executives who traded in an annual pattern did that well.

Random Happens
"Unlikely to happen by chance" is only a good argument if you've
estimated the chance.
Also: a particular coincidence may be rare, but some coincidence
somewhere occurs constantly.

A more complete theory
Compare probability of multiple alternatives.

The Bayesian approach:
probability distribution over hypotheses
E.g. Is the NYPD targeting mosques for stop-and-frisk?
1

0
H0

H1

H2

Never Once or twice Routinely

*Tricky: you have to imagine a hypothesis before you can assign it a
probability.

Evidence
Information that justifies a belief.
Presented with evidence E for X, we should believe X "more."
In terms of probability, P(X|E) > P(X)

Strength of Evidence
Is coughing strong or weak evidence for a cold?
Expressed in terms of conditional probabilities.
P(cold|coughing)
High values = strong evidence.

Don't reverse probabilities!
In general P(A|B) ≠ P(B|A)
P(coughing|cold) ≈ 0.9
P(cold|coughing) ≈ 0.3
Bayes' theorem gives the relationship
P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A) / P(B)

Quantified support for hypotheses
How likely is a hypothesis H, given evidence E?
Or, what is Pr(H|E)?
It depends on:
how likely H was before E, Pr(H)
how likely the E would be if H is true, Pr(E|H)
how common is the evidence, Pr(E)

Bayes' theorem:
learning from evidence
Pr(H|E) = Pr(E|H) Pr(H) / Pr(E)
or

P(H|E) = Pr(E|H)/Pr(E) * Pr(H)
Likelihood
How likely is H
given evidence E?

Model of H
Probability of
seeing E
if H is true

Model of E
How commonly
do we see E at all?

Prior
How likely was
H to begin with?

Alice is coughing. Does she have a cold?
Hypothesis H = Alice has a cold
Evidence E = we just saw her cough

Alice is coughing. Does she have a cold?
Hypothesis H = Alice has a cold
Evidence E = we just saw her cough
Prior P(H) = 0.05 (5% of our friends have a cold)
Model P(E|H) = 0.9 (most people with colds cough)
Model P(E) = 0.1 (10% of everyone coughs today)

Alice is coughing. Does she have a cold?
P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/P(E)
= 0.9 * 0.05 / 0.1
= 0.45
If you believe your initial probability estimates, you
should now believe there's a 45% chance she has a
cold.

Did the stoplight reduce accidents?

7
0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

4

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

1

Simulated without stoplight
2
3

5
6

8
9

7
0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

4

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 6 8

1

Simulated with a 50% effective stoplight
2

5

8

3

6

9

Models
They encode our background knowledge
and assumptions

Does chocolate make you smarter?

Does marriage make women safer?

Occupational Group
Farmers, foresters, and fisherman

Smoking

Mortality
77

84

Miners and quarrymen

137

116

Gas, coke and chemical makers

117

123

94

128

Furnace, forge, foundry, and rolling mill

116

155

Electrical and electronics workers

102

101

111

118

Woodworkers

93

113

Leather workers

88

104

Textile workers

102

88

91

104

Food, drink, and tobacco workers

104

129

Paper and printing workers

107

86

Makers of other products

112

96

Glass and ceramics makers

Clothing workers

How correlation happens
X

X

Y

Y

Y causes X

X causes Y

Z
X

X

Y

Y

hidden variable causes X and Y

Z causes X and Y

X

Y

random chance!

How correlation happens
X

Y

X causes Y

X

Y

Y causes X

Z
X

Y

Z causes X and Y

X

Y

random chance!

Guns and firearm homicides?
X

Y

if you have a gun, you're going to use it

X

Y

if it's a dangerous neighborhood, you'll buy a gun

X

Y

the correlation is due to chance

Beauty and responses
X

Y

telling a woman she's beautiful
makes her respond less

Z
X

Y

if a woman is beautiful,
1) she'll respond less
2) people will tell her that

Beauty is a "confounding variable." The correlation is
real, but you've misunderstood the causal structure.

Beauty and responses
X

Y

telling a woman she's beautiful doesn't work

Z
X

Y

if a woman is beautiful,
1) she'll respond less
2) people will tell her that

Beauty is a "confounding variable." The correlation is
real, but you've misunderstood the causal structure.

What an experiment is:
intervene in a network of causes

A good model has a theory of the world.

Interpretation
Context, cognitive biases, generalizability

Bias
A systematic tendency to produce an incorrect answer.
Systematic means it's not a random error. There's a pattern to the errors.
Implies we could do better if we corrected for the pattern.
*Tricky: evaluating bias requires knowledge of correct answer.

Cognitive biases
Availability heuristic: we use examples that come to mind,
Preference for earlier information: what we learn first has a
much greater effect on our judgment.
Memory formation: whatever seems important at the time is
what gets remembered.
Confirmation bias: we seek out and give greater importance to
information that confirms our expectations.

Confirmation bias
Comes in many forms.
...unconsciously filtering information that doesn't fit expectations.
...not looking for contrary information.
...not imagining the alternatives.

As the amount of information increases, it gets more likely that
some information somewhere supports any particular
hypothesis.
In other words, if you go looking for confirmation, you will find it.
This is not a complete truth-finding method.

Method of competing hypotheses
(Remember, if you can't imagine it, you can't conclude it!)

Go looking for information that gives you the best ability to discriminate
between hypotheses.
Evidence which supports Hi is much less useful than evidence which
supports Hi much more than Hj, if the goal is to choose a hypothesis.

Method of competing hypotheses,
quantitative form
Each is a model of what you'd expect to see P(E|Hi),
with initial probability P(Hi)

For each new piece of evidence, use Bayes' rule to
update probability on all hypotheses.
Inference result is probabilities of different hypotheses
given all evidence
{ P(H0|E), P(H1|E), ... , P(HN|E) }

A difficult example
NYPD performs ~600,000 street stop and frisks per year.
What sorts of conclusions could we draw from this data? How?

Generalizability
Will your conclusions hold in other contexts?

What
doesn't a
map
show?

NYC
population
colored by
income

Stop and Frisk Causation
Suppose you take the address of every mosque in NYC, and
discover that there are 15% more stop-and-frisks within 100m of
mosques than the overall average.
Can we conclude that the police are targeting Muslims?