Listen Now

Greg and Patrick discuss issues of controlling for extraneous variables, by randomization and by design, but especially the challenges and assumptions associated with statistical control. Along the way they also mention drag racing, Volkswagen Bugs, Seabiscuit, Harrison Bergeron, Diet Coke, Janet Jackson, John Denver, gastrointestinal distress, Sewall Wright, and babies and bathwater. 

In this episode Patrick & Greg consider in what ways they have become their parents and then attempt to use that insight to better understand how one can provide a quantitative review of a substantive manuscript without becoming the much reviled Reviewer 2. Along the way they also discuss Ginsu knives, not wearing pants, Ouija boards, using "and" in place of "but", five-finger death punches, the kraken, happy feet, mad libs, everyone needing a Longstreet, book vs. movie endings, and dumpster diving. 

Greg and Patrick discuss Patrick's potentially horrible idea for post-publication review, in which a journal is created for the sole purpose of reviewing the soundness of the quantitative methods used in papers that have already been published in flagship journals. Hair-brained scheme, or sheer genius? You be the judge. Along the way they also mention driving without headlights, homemade explosives, modified wheelchairs, the IJCC, guacamole at Margaret's Cantina, dishwashers and JetDry, the IAD, blind pigs and acorns, the 15 commandments, and Jamaican bobsleds. 

Today Patrick & Greg step off-camera and pull in Dr. Samantha Anderson who is a quantitative psychologist at Arizona State University and is an expert in all things related to the so-called “replication crisis.” They are uncharacteristically quiet as she talks about the past, present, and future of replication in the social sciences. Along the way they also discuss: Ask Sammy, bioluminescence, cheat day, podcast pre-registration, music that makes you younger, Defcon 5, or maybe 1, or 3, mother-in-laws, air quotes, and the queen of the world. 

Greg and Patrick talk about the control of Type I error rate. Well, more like... they say stuff, change their minds, say stuff, change their minds... and in the end — spoiler alert — reach no unified conclusion whatsoever.  But they do manage to hit a number of the relevant issues around Type I error control, albeit largely accidentally and inconsistently. Along the way, they also mention porch witches, furries, cereal killers, neuralizers, why some TAs deserve hazard pay, lawyering-up, rocking chairs in unison,  how Patrick controls the pet population, all things Scottish, and yellow lights. 

Patrick and Greg hold a traditional Irish funeral for multivariate analysis of variance, starting with a heartfelt eulogy in front of family and friends in the church and then moving to a more honest reckoning with Mom and Aunt Dotty at the reception in the school gym following the service. Along with a celebration of a life questionably well lived, they also discuss Ned Devine, mildly inebriated priests, champagne supernovas, the four British actors, eugoogalies, leeches, cowardice, senescence, legal disclaimers, bringing out your dead, and Danny Boy. 

In this episode Patrick and Greg follow up last week’s discussion of moderation by tackling its partner in crime, mediation, including causal challenges, ways of  testing, and how they think about it as part of a larger analytical system. Along the way they also manage to discuss word association, personal grievances, light switches, the Concord, sharp sticks, hats and horses, getting shivved, and Jeff Spicoli. 

In this episode, Greg and Patrick bicker about moderation and discuss the critical importance of moving our science away from thinking in terms of main effects and towards the conceptualization of the conditions under which an effect might hold. Along the way they also discuss the Carsophagus, Sisyphean tasks, the London Museum, pineapples, 9.8m/sec^2, military helicopters, the MILF model, public service announcements, and Spinal Tap. 

Patrick and Greg offer completely unsolicited career advice as you identify and apply for positions following your doctoral training. They discuss what to consider when selecting where to apply as well as drafting personal statements, CVs, letters of recommendation, and research statements. Along the way they also comment on World War II quiz shows, eHarmony and tinder, the long con, mortgaging retirements, morning research inspirations, the 3rd and 4th ribs, promptness, and academia as community dinner theater. 

In this episode Greg and Patrick wander semi-drunkenly around the topic of model-based inference and discuss how this perspective can help move us forward as a scientific discipline. They also somehow manage to discuss explosives, sniffing glue, homemade 787s, catfish noodling, the Ikea helpline, Calvinball, Ludwig Beethoven, Rube Goldberg, hell's half acre, denouements, and intolerable hypocrisy.

Patrick and Greg impulsively launch the inaugural segment of "Quantitude Wake Up Call" where they forget how longitude works and call Bayesian expert Roy Levy at 5:40 in the morning. Although somewhat rattled, Roy helps the Quantidudes better understand Bayesian inference and describes the many ways that this approach can help move our science forward. Along the way they discuss Jedi mind tricks, the birds and the bees, time zones, Virgos, the Dark Side, cowards, subjectivity, lecturing bus drivers, sideways fish, and statistical pop-up books. 

The episode begins with what Patrick believes will be a discussion of statistics in the news, but then turns into a surprise attack by Greg that rapidly devolves into a second edition of Pop Quiz (covering scales of measurement, probability and odds, intraclass correlation, null hypothesis significance testing, suppression, and Bayes' Theorem). In addition to relentlessly attacking each others' credibility, the Quantidudes mention Waldo, Flat Stanley, "and so uhhhhh," Max Headroom, Matt Damon, The Maltese Falcon, dead kittens, The Hunger Games, The Dad Rule, doppelgangers, eye twitches, pregnancy tests, and Costco caskets.

Patrick and Greg open with a disagreement about time travel movies, which then somehow devolves into a discussion of alternative approaches to modeling longitudinal data. They agree that a core issue to consider is the separation of within-person and between-person components of change over time, both theoretically and analytically. Throughout the discussion they also mention antici-, hot tub time machine, chipmunks, garbage disposals, digging up John Stuart Mill, whiteboard problems, cats and laser pointers, Roz from Monsters Inc. (she's back!), 3-D dinosaur posters, licking a hot burner, 30th place ribbons, and -pation. 

In this, the inaugural episode of Season 2, Greg and Patrick continue their summer strategy of subcontracting out talent by inviting people to call-in and describe what quantitative work they did over summer vacation. In addition to being amazed at the many cool quantitative things people are doing out in the world, the discuss imprimaturs, battle without honor, digestive rituals, hostage videos, underwear, utility infielders, Alexis in a Lexus, affectionate slaps, Strunk & White, irony vs. paradox, and Oxford commas.  

In recognition of your hard work this summer to become a quantitative leader in your field, you are hereby presented with... a brand new case of Imposter Syndrome! Patrick and Greg explore what it is, where it comes from, what you might be able to do about it, and, possibly most importantly, that it's actually a good problem to have. This episode concludes Quanti•Qamp 2020, with Season 2 of Quantitude coming in August.

Greg and Patrick dedicate Week 7 of Quanti•Qamp to three core topics: mocking one another, how to continue learning both foundational and novel quantitative methods across your career, and mocking one another. Despite their many disagreements, they unanimously concur that the challenge of keeping abreast of newly developed quantitative methods is entirely Kris Preacher's fault. Carry on. And go learn something! 

Week six of Quanti•Qamp welcomes special guest Dr. A. Nayena Blankson, a Professor of Psychology at Spelman College who is a leading national voice in diversity and equity in academia. Nayena talks with Patrick and Greg about how we can capitalize on the current national conversation about race and equity to enhance diversity in both academia in general and in the quantitative sciences in particular. 

In the fifth week of Quanti•Qamp, senior leadership at the QuantiGon recruit a new Commander to demonstrate proper preparation, organization, and executive control. The guest Executive Officer is Dr. Rebecca Brock, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, who will motivate a discussion about how to build a quantitative culture in your home department or research unit. Patrick and Greg clearly learn nothing about leadership despite Dr. Brock's best efforts. 

In the fourth week of Quanti•Qamp, neither Patrick nor Greg have read each other's emails about the organization of the episode and thus entirely ad lib a discussion on how one might write a quantitatively-oriented pedagogical paper. Because they are completely unprepared for the episode, they also forget to provide the next QQamp assignment; however, being the seasoned academicians that they are, they will somehow blame you for not completing the assignment, because by now, "you should have known." Carry on. 

In the third week of Quanti•Qamp, Patrick and Greg ramble semi-coherently about how you might use existing data to drive a quantitative research idea as well as to serve as the foundation for making a unique quantitative contribution. They explore different potential data sources and discuss the variety of ways these might be used in the pursuit of a quantitative research question. They conclude with the next QQamp assignment: identify a small number of existing data sets in your substantive field that you might be able to make use of in your own quantitative research. Carry on.