Drink

So, I intended to keep this blog as anonymous as possible for as long as possible, but it seems that my instinct is to share, share, share. I have to give away some details. The story demands it. I am a student at Harvard and am currently writing this from a campus computer lab.

It is 12:44 am. I’ve just arrived in the computer lab from watching Alt-J’s concert, but I’m not alone here. There’s someone else watching some kind of video – when I was standing I could see it reflected in the glass behind him. It kept switching scenes, from men talking to cars driving, which gives me the impression that it’s a documentary. I also have that impression because it takes very, very large balls to watch a blockbuster in a computer lab, by yourself, at 12:44 am on a Friday night.1

I personally think it takes considerably fewer balls (smaller balls?) to come in to the computer lab at 12:44 am on a Friday and write a blog post, and here’s why: I know that I can no longer catch a bus (curse you and your Puritanism, Boston!) and I know that a Lyft (not Uber, obvs. Fuck Uber.) will be cheaper in one hour. So this is basically intro to microecon – do something that I would’ve done at home, with my cat, or do it here and save two dollas. I’ll take the two dollas. Sorry, Padfoot.

Anyway. I haven’t gotten around to why I need to reveal my location yet. This is a function of Friday wee hours writing. Sorry.

I have to reveal my location because I need to officially rave about Drink, a cocktail bar in downtown Boston, near South Station. This bar does “bespoke cocktails,” which means you can tell the bartender that you’d like to taste something that smells like the Corpse Flower and they’ll be like, “Hm. Okay.” And they’ll attempt to make you that beverage.

After the Alt-J concert let out, I was on my way to South Station when I remember Drink. I’ve never been before, despite living here for 3 years, because it’s not easy for me to get to. But now it was! It was only .3 mi, as the Google Maps put it, and I was game.

I waited 20 or so minutes in an un-air-conditioned hallway with a few men who were very interested in why I’d come to this bar alone. 2

Then, I was ushered to a seat. Brit was the bartender, and she immediately told me that it was at the pleasure of the people sitting next to me that I was allowed to join this table. (In retrospect, not sure whether this was true – there’s no reason it should’ve been true – but I liked it. I immediately started talking to those people.)

The people next to me were John, about to be engaged, Tim, and Andarla. At one point, Brit pulled out a massive cube of glassy ice and went at it with a machete. I told her I’d like a drink that tasted like dirt, and she handed me a drink with whiskey, an amaro, and honey (i.e. basically what I make myself at home, which was comforting rather than boring. It felt like she knew me.).
Brit was hacking her giant cube of ice and handed me some of it. I was like, “But do I have to hold this? It is very cold!” She seized it out of my hand and threw it on the floor. Everyone yelled, “Opa!” and then she handed me another ice block and let me throw it to the ground.

At one point, Tim told Brit to imagine that he was Bruce Wayne, coming to the bar to unwind after a long evening of fighting crime. Brit said, “Say no more.” Then, she took her machete to the cork of a champagne bottle, flinging the cork God knows where, and poured everyone in the vicinity a glass of champagne. She said to Tim, after he expressed concerns, “You’ll just pay for your glass. I haven’t had a chance to saber a champagne in a while, so it was mostly for that.”

I noticed her talking before she sabered the champagne. She said to her
coworker: “Three – no, four – glasses.” The fourth was for me.


1. I’ve never been sure – is 12:30 am Friday night or is it now Saturday morning? I know, technically, that it’s Saturday morning, but if you said to someone, “Yeah, bro! I was watching documentaries in this Harvard Computer Lab all Saturday morning!” they’d be like, “Why don’t you sleep in like a normal fucking person?” So it’s difficult to tell when the night ends and when the morning begins. Personally, I think the break is when you sleep for 1 hour or more. But if you stayed up until the sun rose, you wouldn’t call that Friday night, surely. Back

2. I assume you mean well, but there is still nothing more unrepentantly obnoxious than a man asking a young woman why she’s at a bar by herself. Would you ever ask this of a man? I have a strong desire not to have to justify myself, especially when I am having fun. Do not ask me how I can have fun without other people around. Just. Don’t. Do. That. You want to probe into the underlying psychological factors that allow me to feel comfortable alone, you’ll have to go get yourself a Masters’ of Social Work.Back

Advertisements

Did I Do That?

I’m writing this blog post from a public space. I often enjoy listening to music while I write – I put on Pandora’s “Today’s Alternative Radio” station and am rewarded by music that is generally upbeat and unsurprising. It’s not inspiring, but that means that it’s not distracting.

But just now when I was trying to put this music on, it wasn’t coming from my headphones. Instead, it was coming from the computer.

For me, this is a nightmare scenario. I am playing music and people can hear it. One of my biggest pet peeves is when a person on the bus plays music loud enough on their headphones that I can hear it. The small, tinny rhythm makes it difficult for me to focus on anything else, and I can’t turn up my music loud enough to block it or I’ll be an offender too!

This public space has some regulars, and one of them is an older lady who listens to the news on her computer without any headphones. It enrages me. I steam about the lack of awareness. Doesn’t she see that other people are trying to work here? Does she not care?

So anyway, having music come out of my computer puts me in exactly the same category of rude distractors that I judge. The hunter becomes the prey!1

What’s worse about this is that, usually, this is an error in the order of operations. If music isn’t playing in my headphones, it’s usually because I plugged them in before logging into my account. But this time, I’d plugged them into the wrong port – they were in the mike port.

Here’s why this is terrifying: I was watching tutorial videos about Python for about an hour this morning. Since then, I got up, taking my headphones, and got lunch. So, it’s not necessarily certain that I’ve been playing Python tutorials for an entire group of people today – but there’s this little crumb of doubt now. A persistent voice, whispering, “But what if you plugged your headphones in incorrectly this morning too?”

I like to think someone who tell me if I had.

I’d like to ask someone whether I did. But I don’t know anyone here well enough to voice this question, especially since it betrays that I put little stock in my own perception of reality. So what if I believed I was listening to headphones this morning? Isn’t it possible that it was playing out loud?

The uncertainty of others’ perceptions is something that troubles me nearly as much as the possibility that I might’ve been irritating everyone around me. There are an awful lot of questions about what other people perceived that we never get answers to.

Maybe our best bet is to be Ira Glass and the crew of This American Life? They ask friends and family what they perceived or how they felt and then put it on the radio. I’ll come back to this idea in another post.


1. This, in itself, is a good reason not to be so fucking judgmental all the time. You never know when you’re going to err, and if you turn the intense laser beam of your judgment on yourself, you’re going to get burnt.

Creating a Balance Table in Stata (Part 2)

Yesterday’s post showed how to save the output from non-estimate results in Stata to check the balance for an experiment. Today, we’ll talk about how we can show this for slightly more complicated situations.

Situation 1 – You Have Categorical Variables

This is almost the same as the quantitative data we were handling yesterday, but you can’t use a t-test or regression because both of these techniques are developed for continuous quantitative variables. Instead, let’s use Pearson’s Chi-Squared test for independence. The null hypothesis of this test is that our categorical variable is independent from the treatment; that is, knowing the treatment doesn’t give us additional information about the likelihood that the categorical variable takes a value. See this nice little site for more information, if you’re curious.

To calculate the chi-squared stat in Stata, we just use tab treat categorical_var, chi2 .

Then, if we ask for the results, ret li, we get the number of observations, the number of rows and columns, our chi-squared stat, and our p-value. If we choose to keep the chi-squared stat, we need to keep the number of rows and columns so that our reader can interpret it. Personally, I’d just save the p-value, since that’s what people will look up with the chi-squared statistic anyway.

To save our p-value, we do the same process as before:

gen double p_value = .
replace p_value = r(p) in 1

Situation 2 – You Have Three or More Treatment Arms

This is the situation I found myself in, as I was taking this employment test. I was paralyzed – I knew that a t-test was standard for comparing treatment and control, but I wasn’t sure what’s considered “standard” when you have more than two groups to compare.

However, regardless of what’s “standard,” statistics has a firm answer to this: you’re going to need an ANOVA, short for analysis of variance. This basically compares the variance that exists within group to that which exists between them – if there’s far more variance between the groups than within them, that suggests to us that maybe these groups are statistically different.

To run an ANOVA in Stata, you’d use anova variable_to_check treatment_indicator. But if we use ret li here to try and save our information, we’ll notice that we haven’t got any of the results that we care about!

Since ANOVA is classified under “Linear models and related” in Stata, we’ll instead need to look at eret li. Then, we’ll see that we have almost all of our results, with the noteable (and frankly, perplexing) absence of our p-value. However, we can generate this by setting the cell we want to put it in equal to Ftail(e(df_m), e(df_r), e(F)).

Note: if you’ve got categorical variables and three or more treatment arms, you’d still use a chi-squared test. That test can handle multiple treatments.

One Wrap-Up Note

I briefly considered leaving this for another blog post, since I’m reaching my word limit here, but I’ll be real: I have a strong desire not to write about balance tables for a third day in a row. So here’s a bit of a warning: plenty of people have noted that it doesn’t actually make sense to do a balance check for an experiment.

The whole point of statistics like the t-stat, ANOVA’s F-stat, and so on is that they’re meant to give us information about the population as a whole from the sample that we’re looking at. However, when we’re trying to deduce whether the treated group is different from the control, there is no larger population to make inferences about. This is it. So, if the proportion of men in control is not equal to proportion of men in treatment, we know that our randomization is not balanced on gender!

Then, the question should be: what is a large enough difference along one covariate to be evidence that this isn’t random? I can’t remember off the top of my head whether I’ve ever learned this, but my intuition is that you could figure this out by bootstrapping.

Here’s what I’m imagining: you’d through all of your observations into a bucket and you’d draw from that bucket with replacement to make one group that is marked as “control” and another group that is marked as “treatment.” You could repeat this 10,000 times and then compare your data to this generated set of distributions – if your data looks pretty weird compared to the generated data, then that’s indicative that something went wrong. But I’m just spit-balling. We’d have to prove it.

Second point: yes, balance checks don’t make a whole lot of sense for experiments. However, they certainly do make sense for natural experiments. If you have something distributed as-if-randomly, it’s a good idea to check it.

Third point: I’m not sure whether checking that the means are not significantly different is the best way to do this. Why don’t we check that the distributions aren’t significantly different? We do have statistics for that…

Creating a Balance Table in Stata (Part 1)

I recently had the extremely uncomfortable experience of taking a timed test for employment that wanted me to create a balance table for an experiment with three treatments and having no idea how to do it.

This was uncomfortable because I know, in theory, how a balance table ought to work. I’m trained as a statistician. It’s remarkably embarrassing to stumble on your supposed “core competency.” I wound up turning in some half-assed tables glued together in Excel. Needless to say, I didn’t get a call back.

So, this post is for those of you who find yourself in the unenviable position of having a little too much book knowledge and a little too little practical know-how when it comes to statistical analysis. (Let’s be real – this post is also for me to prove to myself that I do know some of the things!)

To start off: the basic idea of a balance table is that we want to assess whether our randomization worked. We’re interested in assigning people to two or more treatments, and a balance table is a nice check that we haven’t assigned all of the men to treatment 1 and all of the women to treatment 2, or some nonsense like that.

Then, for an experiment that just has treatment and control, we usually just conduct a t-test on a variety of participant traits that we’ve gathered data for.

In the balance table shown below, for the “Incentives Work” paper by Duflo, Hanna, and Ryan, the authors take an equivalent tack – they regress each characteristic on a variable that is 0 for control units and 1 for treated. Then, the coefficient that they get from that regression is just the difference between treatment and control on this trait, and the standard error of that coefficient tells them whether there’s a significant difference between the two groups.

Duflo balance table
It sure would be nice if I knew how to make one of these…

Unfortunately, understanding this doesn’t get us very close to being able to construct a table that’s suitable for publication. And indeed, the replication files for this particular table don’t shed any light on how it’s constructed. My guess is that the log file that the replication do-file spits out is then reformatted by hand for LaTeX?

If we’re handling a regression type output in Stata, we could use estout to package it up nicely, but what if we wanted to more explicitly compare means? Estout doesn’t seem to see t-test outputs, since they’re not considered “estimates.”

Instead, after a t-test, we can type “ret li” (short for “return list”) and that’ll spit out the numbers that we care about. Specifically, we want to preserve r(mu_1) and r(mu_2), our estimates of the means; r(N_1) and r(N_2), the number of observations in each treatment group; and most importantly, either r(t) and r(df_t), the t-stat and its degrees of freedom, or r(p), the probability that our two means are different from each other.

To save these, we’re going to generate results variables.

Code for balance table
Still to come: I learn how to use WordPress so that I can type code straight in instead of print-screening it like some kind of goon.

This creates the following:

mean_1 n_1 mean_2 n_2 t_stat df_t p_value varname varlabel
.641 39 .658 41 -.162 78 .871 open Proportion of Schools Open

This is honestly already so much better than what I ended up with on this job exam that I feel a little silly not learning it before.

Clearly here, you want to check the balance of more than one variable, so you’d loop over variables and add a local variable to keep tally of which row to put things in. See this article in the Stata Journal for an example of that – I basically pulled the code from that.

When to Talk to Professors?

After looking at Enos’s replication files, it kind of looks like I would have to ask him for the property record data if I wanted to redo his analysis on only people who’d recently moved in, so that is, for today at least, a hard pass. Although, it probably would be easy enough to check out, if we did have the data?

This is something that I’ve struggled with throughout graduate school – when do you have enough information to meet with or talk to a professor? Is it sufficient that you have an idea about another analysis that could be run on data that you suspect they have, or that you just like a paper that they wrote? Or is it the other side of the spectrum, where you should only talk to them if you’ve completed the lit review and theory section of your paper and all you need is their expert advice and their data?

I’ve always tended towards the “never, ever speak to a professor”-side of things, but if I were to write down top five reasons I’m considering dropping out of graduate school, “Lack of Sufficient Support from Professors” would probably be number four. It isn’t a far stretch to guess that there might be some relation between these things.

I took to Google to see what The Internet had to say about when it’s appropriate to schedule meetings with professors, as a graduate student, but The Internet was disappointingly quiet on the matter. The closest I got to an answer was this:

Manage Your Advisors.

Keep your advisors aware of what you are doing, but do not bother them. Be an interesting presence, not a pest.

Stephen C. Stearns, Ph.D.

So, that’s not super encouraging. Being an “interesting presence” seems like an especially large ask.

The nice thing about being overly shy about visiting professors is that I end up catching at least some “thought gaps” before running them by someone. For instance, I just realized that I would really need to be able to compare a person’s voting record from before their move to their voting record after their move to assess whether turnout stayed the same.

We also would have to consider that people who move to a new place are just less likely to vote in that new place, in the first election (I don’t know whether this is empirically true, but it certainly sounds like it). So, we might think that we’re observing reduced turnout because someone has stopped feeling racial threat, but we might actually be observing it because they’re new in the neighborhood and haven’t really gotten their bearings.

I’m not really sure where that leaves me on this. Perhaps back at the original conclusion of my post, “On the Move”: we need a natural experiment where some people, kind of randomly picked, are forced to move, and others are not.

Maybe looking at urban renewal is the right tack, and we’re just focusing on the wrong residents?

Racial Threat and Behavior

I was thinking about the potential impact of changing communities on party identification as I was walking home last night, and I realized that we might be able to settle for exposure to a different community, rather than reaching for a complete change. Immediately, I thought of Ryan Enos’s work on racial threat and political behavior.

The basic idea of “racial threat” is that white voters respond negatively to people of a different race from them, and that negative reaction informs their political behavior – turnout and vote choice.

In a 2014 experiment, Enos placed pairs of native Spanish speakers on the same Boston commuter rail platforms at the same time for ten days in a row. He paid the unsuspecting commuters, who were predominantly white, to take a web survey before the experiment started, and then after they’d had a few days of exposure to the Spanish speakers, and in those surveys, he asked for their preferences on immigration policies.

Cover of Enos Article
A photo of the experiment as it occurred. This seal thinks that English should be the official language of the United States.

Enos finds that people who waited on the platform – and thus were “treated” with exposure to Spanish speakers – are more likely to favor decreasing the number of immigrants from Mexico and to favor deportation for employed, non-criminal immigrants who are in the US illegally. However, he also finds that commuters who were exposed to Spanish speakers more times answer these questions less conservatively.

In more recent work, Enos looks at an as-if-random demographic change that resulted when Chicago demolished housing projects. The demolition of these projects made the population in those neighborhoods significantly whiter.

In this article, Enos finds that white residents living near the projects are 13.4 percentage points less likely to vote than white residents living further away, after the projects are demolished. In contrast, there is no difference in voting between black residents close to the projects and those that are further away. This is consistent with a story where white voters are no longer motivated by racial threat to get out the vote.

When we compare the vote choice of precincts near demolished projects to those near nondemolished projects, there’s even more evidence of voting in accordance to racial threat: precincts that next to demolished projects slowly become less likely to vote for Republicans, while there’s no such change in precincts next to nondemolished projects.

So, these are some pretty depressing findings. But I’m not yet convinced that they perfectly capture what I was thinking about yesterday. I completely buy racial threat, but I wonder whether everyone is equally susceptible to it. Is it possible that people with a less fixed sense of who their community includes aren’t as threatened by the addition of new people?

To pin that question down a little: in the Enos train study, the commuters seemed to know each other before these new Spanish-speakers were added. Then, part of the negative reaction must be “Hey, who are these guys? Never seen them before.” If you’re in a situation where you only rarely see people you recognize, it seems like this element of racial threat would be less pronounced.

I have an idea about how we could get at this in Enos’s data from the 2016 study of Chicago – he matches voter records with property records for everyone in Chicago. If we have the property records, we could subset to the voters who’ve only recently moved into their neighborhoods. My guess is that their turnout and vote choice doesn’t differ much from voters who aren’t next to demolished projects.

On the Move

I am 27 years old, and I have lived in eight states, only counting places where I’ve stayed for more than three months. If you count places I’ve stayed for at least one month, I’ve lived in ten states and two countries. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2008, I’ve lived in more states than 98% of people in the United States.

Not counting moves that were intentionally limited in time – internships and the like – I’ve moved 12 times in my life so far. The average American moves 11.4 times in their lifetime.

Now, I was thinking about this the other day as part of a larger package of “life assessment” style thoughts, and I found myself wondering whether moving this often makes a person more liberal. At a glance, that jives with our intuition, right? Social conservatism, at its core, honors tradition and sees inherent value in processes that are time-tested. Social liberalism, at its limit, doesn’t include the age of a practice in its consideration of that practice’s value. Why would it matter if a practice is “traditional” if it is unjust?

It seems likely that a person who moves around a lot during their life is exposed to more traditions and ways of being than a person who stays in their hometown. It’s possible that they could react by ossifying, bunkering into their traditions. But I guess I think it’s more likely that they would react by becoming a little more agnostic about the “right” way to do things.

This intuition seems to hold up to a superficial analysis – the cross-tabulation below shows that liberals are over-represented in the group of people who’ve lived in multiple places, and conservatives are over-represented in the group of people who’ve lived in the same place for their entire life. (This data is from the 2008 Pew Research Center survey.)

Crosstabs of moving and ideology

However, this is where it gets a bit complicated. Because there are plenty of characteristics that are predictive of moving around that are also predictive of being liberal. Poorer families are more likely to move in search of economic opportunities – this was my family’s experience. Married people are less likely to switch states, and they’re more conservative than single people. Higher education levels are correlated with moving more often and being less conservative.

On top of all of these confounders, we’re also faced with a reverse causality issue. If you value tradition less, you’re probably more willing to move around than a person who gets a lot of utility from stability.

It’s pretty thorny. My gut tells me that there’s probably some causal impact here – maybe not a large one, and certainly contingent on whether you move somewhere with a similar culture to your hometown’s, but some kind of liberalizing effect. We’ve just got to find a natural experiment. I think I’m going to check the data for Moving to Opportunity – it should be that folks awarded housing vouchers for low-poverty neighborhoods are moving to different enough cultures that we might see some liberalization.