Powered by RND
PodcastsScienceNormal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics

Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics

Regina Nuzzo and Kristin Sainani
Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics
Latest episode

Available Episodes

5 of 15
  • Your Brain on AI: Is ChatGPT making us mentally lazy?
    ChatGPT is melting our brainpower, killing creativity, and making us soulless — or so the headlines imply. We dig into the study behind the claims, starting with quirky bar charts and mysterious sample sizes, then winding through hairball-like brain diagrams and tens of thousands of statistical tests. Our statistical sleuthing leaves us with questions, not just about the results, but about whether this was science’s version of a first date that looked better on paper.Statistical topicsANOVABar graphsData visualization False Discovery Rate correctionMultiple testingPreprintsStatistical SleuthingMethodological morals"Treat your preprints like your blind dates. Show up showered and with teeth brushed.""Always check your N. Then check it again.""Never make a bar graph that just shows p-values. Ever."Link to paperKristin and Regina’s online courses: Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding  Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis Medical Statistics Certificate Program  Writing in the Sciences Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate ProgramPrograms that we teach in:Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Find us on:Kristin -  LinkedIn & Twitter/XRegina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com(00:00) - Intro (03:46) - Media coverage of the study (08:35) - The experiment (12:09) - Sample size issues (13:11) - Bar chart sleuthing (19:15) - Blind date analogy (22:57) - Interview results (29:07) - Simple text analysis results (33:07) - Natural language processing results (40:03) - N-gram and ontology analysis results (44:58) - Teacher evaluation results (51:33) - Neuroimaging analysis (59:35) - Multiple testing and connectivity issues (01:05:13) - Brain adaptation results (01:08:50) - Wrap-up, rating, and methodological morals
    --------  
    1:14:07
  • The Backfire Effect: Can fact-checking make false beliefs stronger?
    Can correcting misinformation make it worse? The “backfire effect” claims that debunking myths can actually make false beliefs stronger. We dig into the evidence — from ghost studies to headline-making experiments — to see if this psychological plot twist really holds up. Along the way, we unpack interaction effects, randomization red flags, and what happens when bad citations take on a life of their own. Plus: dirty talk analogies, statistical sleuthing, and why “familiarity” might be your brain’s sneakiest trick.Statistical topicsComputational replicationReplicationBlock randomizationProblems in randomizationBad citingInteractions in regressionUnpublished "Ghost Paper"PDF retrieved from the Wayback MachineCitationsNyhan B, Reifler J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2010;32:303–330.Skurnik I, Yoon C, Schwarz N. “Myths & Facts” about the flu: Health education campaigns can reduce vaccination intentions. Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.Schwarz N, Sanna LJ, Skurnik I, et al. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;39:127–61.Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, et al. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012;13:106–131.Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Sala S. Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0181640.Pluviano S, Watt C, Ragazzini G, et al. Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro‑vaccine campaigns. Cognitive Processing. 2019;20:325–31.Wood T, Porter E. The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. 2019;41:135–63.Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood TJ. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior. 2020;42:939–60.Ecker UKH, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017;6:185–92.Swire B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017;43:1948–61.Ecker UKH, O’Donnell M, Ang LC, et al. The effectiveness of short- and long-format retractions on misinformation belief and recall. British Journal of Psychology. 2020;111:36–54.Ecker UKH, Sharkey CXM, Swire-Thompson B. Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects. PLOS ONE. 2023;18:e0281140.Cook J, Lewandowsky S. The Debunking Handbook. University of Queensland. 2011.Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH, et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://sks.to/db2020. Swire‑Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020;9:286–99.Kristin and Regina’s online courses: Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding  Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis Medical Statistics Certificate Program  Writing in the Sciences Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Programs that we teach in:Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Find us on:Kristin -  LinkedIn & Twitter/XRegina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com(00:00) - (00:00) - Intro (02:05) - What is the backfire effect? (03:55) - The 2010 paper that panicked fact-checkers (06:25) - The ghost paper what it really said (12:35) - Study design of the 2010 paper (18:25) - Results of the 2010 paper (19:55) - Crossover interactions, regression models, and intimate talk (25:24) - Missing data and cleaning your bedroom analogy (28:11) - Fact-checking the fact-checking paper (33:07) - Replication and pushing the data to the limit (36:59) - The purported backfire effect spreads (41:06) - The 2017 paper that got a lot of attention (44:25) - Statistical sleuthing the 2017 paper (48:51) - Will researchers double down on their earlier conclusions? (54:46) - A review paper sums it all up (56:00) - Wrap up, rating, and methodological morals
    --------  
    58:26
  • Dating Wishlists: Are we happier when we get what we want in a mate?
    Loyal, funny, hot — you’ve probably got a wish list for your dream partner. But does checking all your boxes actually lead to happily ever after? In this episode, we dive into a massive global study that put the “ideal partner” hypothesis to the test. Do people really know what they want, and does getting it actually make them happier? We explore surprising statistical insights from over 10,000 romantics in 43 countries, from mean-centering and interaction effects to the good-catch confounder. Along the way, we dig into dessert metaphors, partner boat-count regression models, and the one trait that people say doesn’t matter — but secretly makes them happiest.Statistical topicsRegressionRandom Slopes and Intercepts (Random Effects) in RegressionStandardized Beta Coefficients in RegressionInteraction Effects in RegressionMean CenteringExploratory AnalysesMethodological morals“Good science bares it all.”“When the world isn't one size fits all, don't fit just one line; use random slopes and intercepts.”ReferencesEastwick PW, Sparks J, Finkel EJ, Meza EM, Adamkovič M, Adu P, Ai T, Akintola AA, Al-Shawaf L, Apriliawati D, Arriaga P, Aubert-Teillaud B, Baník G, Barzykowski K, Batres C, Baucom KJ, Beaulieu EZ, Behnke M, Butcher N, Charles DY, Chen JM, Cheon JE, Chittham P, Chwiłkowska P, Cong CW, Copping LT, Corral-Frias NS, Ćubela Adorić V, Dizon M, Du H, Ehinmowo MI, Escribano DA, Espinosa NM, Expósito F, Feldman G, Freitag R, Frias Armenta M, Gallyamova A, Gillath O, Gjoneska B, Gkinopoulos T, Grafe F, Grigoryev D, Groyecka-Bernard A, Gunaydin G, Ilustrisimo R, Impett E, Kačmár P, Kim YH, Kocur M, Kowal M, Krishna M, Labor PD, Lu JG, Lucas MY, Małecki WP, Malinakova K, Meißner S, Meier Z, Misiak M, Muise A, Novak L, O J, Özdoğru AA, Park HG, Paruzel M, Pavlović Z, Püski M, Ribeiro G, Roberts SC, Röer JP, Ropovik I, Ross RM, Sakman E, Salvador CE, Selcuk E, Skakoon-Sparling S, Sorokowska A, Sorokowski P, Spasovski O, Stanton SCE, Stewart SLK, Swami V, Szaszi B, Takashima K, Tavel P, Tejada J, Tu E, Tuominen J, Vaidis D, Vally Z, Vaughn LA, Villanueva-Moya L, Wisnuwardhani D, Yamada Y, Yonemitsu F, Žídková R, Živná K, Coles NA. A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2025 Jan;128(1):123-146. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000524Love Factually Podcast: https://www.lovefactuallypod.com/Kristin and Regina’s online courses: Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding  Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis Medical Statistics Certificate Program  Writing in the Sciences Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Programs that we teach in:Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Find us on:Kristin -  LinkedIn & Twitter/XRegina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com(00:00) - (00:00) - Intro (04:57) - Actual dating profile wishlists vs study wishlists (09:12) - Juicy paper details (18:31) - What the study actually asked – wishlist, partner resume, relationship satisfaction (24:10) - Linear regression illustrated through number of boats your partner has (30:37) - Standardized regression coefficients illustrated through spouse height concordance (34:52) - Good catch confounder: We all just want the same high-quality ice cream / mate (39:46) - Does your personalized wishlist matter? Results (42:01) - Wishlist regression interaction effects: like chocolate and peanut butter (45:51) - Partner traits result in happiness bonus points (49:51) - What do we say we want – and what really makes us happy? Surprise (54:10) - Gender stereotypes and whether they held up (56:51) - Random effects models and boats again (59:30) - Other cool things they did (01:00:41) - One-minute paper summary (01:02:23) - Wrap-up, rate the claim, methodological morals
    --------  
    1:05:31
  • Stats Reunion: What have we learned so far?
    It’s our first stats reunion! In this special review episode, we revisit favorite concepts from past episodes—p-values, multiple testing, regression adjustment—and give them fresh personalities as characters. Meet the seductive false positive, the clingy post hoc ex, and Charlotte, the well-meaning but overfitting idealist.Statistical topicsBar charts vs Box plotsBonferroni correctionConfoundingFalse positives Multiple testingMultivariable regressionOutcome switchingOver-adjustmentPost hoc analysisPre-registrationResidual confoundingStatistical adjustment using regressionSubgroup analysis Unmeasured confoundingReview SheetReferencesNuzzo RL. The Box Plots Alternative for Visualizing Quantitative Data. PM R. 2016 Mar;8(3):268-72. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.02.001. Epub 2016 Feb 15. PMID: 26892802.Sainani KL. The problem of multiple testing. PM R. 2009 Dec;1(12):1098-103. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.10.004. PMID: 20006317.Kristin and Regina’s online courses: Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding  Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis Medical Statistics Certificate Program  Writing in the Sciences Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Programs that we teach in:Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program Find us on:Kristin -  LinkedIn & Twitter/XRegina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com(00:00) - Intro (02:26) - Mailbag (06:42) - P-values (12:43) - Multiple Testing Guy (16:05) - Bonferroni solution (17:11) - Post hoc analysis ex (22:22) - Subgroup analysis person (29:34) - Statistical adjustment idealist (43:00) - Unmeasured confounding (44:25) - Residual confounding (48:31) - Over-adjustment (53:48) - Wrap-up
    --------  
    56:00
  • HPV Vaccine: How close are we to wiping out cervical cancer?
    Could a preteen vaccine wipe out a global cancer? In this episode, we examine the bold claim that cervical cancer could be eradicated in much of the world by the end of the century—thanks to the highly effective HPV vaccine. We unpack statistical modeling, microsimulations, and how Markov chains make good date-night conversation. We also explore why vaccine uptake has been uneven, how a splash of vinegar is helping screen for cancer in low-resource countries, and why HPV isn’t just a women’s issue—it now causes more cancer in men than in women. Plus: dangerously tight corsets, allegedly breast-squeezing nuns, and the Cosmo quote we wish we’d written ourselves.Statistical topics:Cancer surveillanceMarkov modelsMicrosimulation modelsSensitivity analysesPassive surveillanceBackground ratesCase reports and case seriesMethodologic morals:“When reality is too complex to test, let microsimulations do the rest.”“Case reports are medicine's equivalent to see something, say something. They call for hard data, not hysteria.”Citations:No cervical cancer cases detected in vaccinated women following HPV immunisation. University of Strathclyde, January 22, 2024.Palmer TJ, Kavanagh K, Cuschieri K, et al. Invasive cervical cancer incidence following bivalent human papillomavirus vaccination: a population-based observational study of age at immunization, dose, and deprivation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024;116:857-65.Rigoni-Stern. Statistical facts about cancers on which Doctor Rigoni-Stern based his contribution to the Surgeons' Subgroup of the IV Congress of the Italian Scientists on 23 September 1842. (translation). Stat Med. 1987;6:881-4.Gordan JA, Lenkei SC. Cleanliness, Continence, Constancy, and Cervical Carcinoma. Can Med Assoc J. 1964;90:1132.zur Hausen H. Condylomata acuminata and human genital cancer. Cancer Res. 1976;36:794.Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12-9.Chesson HW, Dunne EF, Hariri S, et al. The estimated lifetime probability of acquiring human papillomavirus in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:660-4.Sullivan, Morgan. Let’s Have a Little Chat About the HPV Vaccine. Cosmopolitan. March 19, 2025.Burger EA, Kim JJ, Sy S, et al. Age of Acquiring Causal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infections: Leveraging Simulation Models to Explore the Natural History of HPV-induced Cervical Cancer. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:893-99.Canfell K. Towards the global elimination of cervical cancer. Papillomavirus Res. 2019;8:100170.World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. November 17, 2020.Hall MT, Simms KT, Lew JB, et al. The projected timeframe until cervical cancer elimination in Australia: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4:e19-e27.Burger EA, Smith MA, Killen J, et al. Projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in the USA: a comparative modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e213-e222.Brisson M, Kim JJ, Canfell K, et al. Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Lancet. 2020;395:575-90.Escabí-Wojna E, Alvelo-Fernández PM, Suárez E, et al. Sex differences in parental reasons for lack of intent to initiate HPV vaccination among adolescents ages 13-17 years: National Immunization Survey - Teen 2019-2021. Vaccine. 2025;44:126584. (see supplement) Szilagyi PG, Albertin CS, Gurfinkel D, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of HPV vaccine hesitancy among parents of adolescents across the US. Vaccine. 2020;38:6027-6037.LaPook, Jonathan. Is the HPV Vaccine Safe? CBS Evening News. August 18, 2009.Slade BA, Leidel L, Vellozzi C, et al. Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine. JAMA. 2009;302:750-7.Kharabsheh S, Al-Otoum H, Clements J, et al. Mass psychogenic illness following tetanus-diphtheria toxoid vaccination in Jordan. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:764-70.Jones TF, Craig AS, Hoy D, et al. Mass psychogenic illness attributed to toxic exposure at a high school. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:96-100.Buttery JP, Madin S, Crawford NW, et al. Mass psychogenic response to human papillomavirus vaccination. Med J Aust. 2008;189:261-2.Clements CJ. Gardasil and mass psychogenic illness. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31:387.Simas C, Munoz N, Arregoces L, et al. HPV vaccine confidence and cases of mass psychogenic illness following immunization in Carmen de Bolivar, Colombia. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15:163-66.Larson HJ. Japan's HPV vaccine crisis: act now to avert cervical cancer cases and deaths. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e184-e185.Brinth LS, Pors K, Theibel AC, Mehlsen J. Orthostatic intolerance and postural tachycardia syndrome as suspected adverse effects of vaccination against human papilloma virus. Vaccine. 2015;33:2602-5.Large well-done studies following up on case reports and passive surveillance:Phillips A, Hickie M, Totterdell J, Brotherton J, Dey A, Hill R, Snelling T, Macartney K. Adverse events following HPV vaccination: 11 years of surveillance in Australia. Vaccine. 2020;38:6038-46.Arnheim-Dahlström L, Pasternak B, Svanström H, et al.
    --------  
    1:15:57

More Science podcasts

About Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics

Normal Curves is a podcast about sexy science & serious statistics. Ever try to make sense of a scientific study and the numbers behind it? Listen in to a lively conversation between two stats-savvy friends who break it all down with humor and clarity. Professors Regina Nuzzo of Gallaudet University and Kristin Sainani of Stanford University discuss academic papers journal club-style — except with more fun, less jargon, and some irreverent, PG-13 content sprinkled in. Join Kristin and Regina as they dissect the data, challenge the claims, and arm you with tools to assess scientific studies on your own.
Podcast website

Listen to Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics, Curious Cases and many other podcasts from around the world with the radio.net app

Get the free radio.net app

  • Stations and podcasts to bookmark
  • Stream via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
  • Supports Carplay & Android Auto
  • Many other app features
Social
v7.23.1 | © 2007-2025 radio.de GmbH
Generated: 8/16/2025 - 8:55:34 AM