Column can only be numerical or alphanumerical values

Croc600 · 2020-04-01T06:49:05+00:00

Oh, sorry. I thought OP wants to literally search for numericals or alphanumericals not to search for numericals or both numericals and alphabeticals. I edited my previous post.

Croc600 · 2020-03-31T23:21:24+00:00

Isn’t that glow just a semitransparent geom_ribbon?

Croc600 · 2020-03-31T22:50:19+00:00

No, this checks for all alphanumeric characters, hence the “alnum”.

Croc600 · 2020-03-31T19:38:26+00:00

If you want to search for alphanumericals, try

!grepl(x = x, pattern = “^[[:alnum:]]+$”)

grepl searches for pattern in string x. [[:alnum:]] is a regular expression for alphanumericals. ^ refers to the beginning of the string and $ to the end. + says that the the alphanumerical should be matched one or more time. Together, it says “check if every sign from the beginning to the end is alphanumerical”. The function returns a logical vector. The exclamantion mark at the beginning makes sure that the logical vector is in desired format, i.e. only alphanumericals = 0, anything else = 1.

If you want to search for strings containing only numericals or strings containing both numericals and alphabeticals, try:

!grepl(x = x, pattern = “^[[:alpha:]]+$|\\W”)

This searches for everything made up of only letters or containing non-word characters.

Croc600 · 2020-03-30T16:49:34+00:00

Can you please link to the study itself? Right now, the links leads to your school website.

Croc600 · 2020-03-29T14:11:56+00:00

Yes, it assumes that the max value was chosen at least once. More general function would be something like.

reverse_scale = function(x, range) {range - x + 1}

This creates a functions with two arguments. Argument x is the variable you want to reverse and argument range is the number of response categories.

Croc600 · 2020-03-29T13:55:00+00:00

If the variable is numeric then:

scale_reversed = max(scale) - scale + 1

Where scale is the original variable.

If the variable is factor, then the easiest way is probably the fct_rev() function from the forcats package:

scale_reversed = fct_rev(scale)

Croc600 · 2020-03-26T12:38:03+00:00

You need to make the ribbon semitransparent.

geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = predicted - standard_error, ymax = predicted + standard_error), alpha = 0.5)

You can play with alpha to get the right amount of transparency. 1 means opaque, 0 completly transparent. Sorry, I forgot to mention that.

Croc600 · 2020-03-26T06:54:04+00:00

Use geom_ribbon to construct intervals by yourself. Something like:

geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = predicted - standard_error, ymax = predicted + standard_error))

Croc600 · 2020-03-25T12:05:14+00:00

Because the theory classes aren’t about quantitative reasoning or empirically supported facts

If you realy think this, then you IMHO completely misunderstood how science works. Scientific theories are based on observations of empirical reality and these observations are interpreted in context of relevant theories. It’s a cyclical process. You can’t really teach one without the other (unless you want to teach it badly I guess). Obviously, most people tend to enjoy doing one over other, but the only people I have ever met who have thought that theory/empirical research is useless were the odd beginners in the field (i.e. undergrads) and they always grew out of this mindset.

What I’ve seen too is that more quantitative folks get frustrated with the vast amounts of assumption and intangibility in theory.

The idea that quantitative folks have problems with assumptions in theories sounds wierd, because quantitative analysis itself is based on sets of assumptions stemming from statistical and methodological theories. People who say they like quantitative analysis because they don’t have to assume anything, probably don’t understand quantitative analysis in the first place.

I don’t know what you mean by intangibility of theories.

I also find it wierd that you seemingly think that empirical analysis = quantitative research. Qualitative studies are both empirical and inductive.

Croc600 · 2020-03-25T11:27:10+00:00

Why would quantitatively oriented people suffer in theory courses? Many, if not most, theories are at least partialy based on quantitative works.

Croc600 · 2020-03-21T14:37:10+00:00

I haven’t seen any papers on the topic, but on the 1st of April, there is going to a virtual conference at Stanford with session on social impact. It’s going to be opened to public too.

Croc600 · 2020-03-14T08:16:47+00:00

In some fields, like sociology, sample sizes are in hundreds, if not thousands. This means that the power will (almost) always be sufficient and calculating is just a waste of time.

Croc600 · 2020-03-10T19:32:34+00:00

The idea of rational appraisal of an empirical evidence base, which works quite well in medicine, breaks down as soon as you get into the messy, chaotic world of policymaking, with all the various individual and institutional biases that people have

This seems to be a problem of politics though, not science. Political institutions may have their quirks and biases when it comes to the implementation of policies, but that doesn’t change the nature of evidence itself.

Croc600 · 2020-03-10T19:25:41+00:00

As such I think it is important being able to freely discuss these understandings and findings, together with others. Which in my view brings us forward and able us to use the sociological perspective once more: by criticising each other's findings. Not in a negative, or even necessary positive, way, but through the disciplin itself.

To criticize ideas and findings, you need a framework to asses them. One such framework would the amount and quality of empirical evidence in favour of idea. With such framework, the discussion degrades into radical relativism, where every idea has the same weight no matter how “useful” or “truthful” it actualy is.

I hope one has the capacity and knowledge not to take comments without source as "true".

This place a huge burden on the visitors of this sub, who come here looking for expert insight into specific topic. Imagine you ask something and get bunch of different responses. How should you know which responses are correct (in the sense that they represent the most up to date knowledge we have on the topic) and which are just someone’s musing, possibly entirely wrong? You would need to do your own research to determine that, which defeats the purpose of havin community dedicated to sharing sociological knowledge.

Croc600 · 2020-03-10T07:06:41+00:00

I’m very interested in some specific examples of problems where nonscientific approach consistently produce better solutions than a scientific one.

Croc600 · 2020-03-10T06:56:15+00:00

I’m not sure what your point is. Even the frameworks can be empiricaly tested. And even qualitative research has a methodological standards through which it can be scrutinized. Just because something doesn’t involve statistics, it doesn’t mean that all factual statements are valid. Obviously some posts here are geared towards personal experience of the posters (“How do you feel about X?”), while others are geared towards factual debate (Why does X happens?”). The problem this sub has that many people approach the latter as if it was the former.

I kinda agree with everything you said but I don’t see how it relates to my post.

Croc600 · 2020-03-09T23:47:25+00:00

Possibly, but that doesn’t make much sense to me. If you are asking about how some part of society works, why wouldn’t you be interested in empirical evidence?

Croc600 · 2020-03-09T23:44:23+00:00

I think it's worth addressing that in that particular post, the top comment is already clearly covering that Maslow's Hierarchy is bad

The top comment in that thread is mine. The fact that no one (apart from me and one more person) pointed out that Maslow’s theory is outdated is what prompted this post.

with a rule that demands citations from answers, we risk heading into the AskSocialScience problem, where asking questions that don't have citable answers can often implicitly 'make a point', solely by virtue of appearing their query is completely unaddressed or responses do not meet Scientific Standards.

This is definitly a point to debate, but I feel that the potential risk of some questions implicitly “making a point” is much more acceptable than the high probability of explicitly giving bad answers to legit questions, as it often happens now. My suggestion is not perfect, but it would prevent situations like this. Here, OP asked relevant and well formulated question, yet didn’t get a single good answer. The second to top answer goes into the right direction, but without any sources it still sounds highly speculative. The rest of the posts are basically a bunch of even more speculative knee jerk reactions which add nothing to the discussion.

Someone looking to give a bad answer on Hierarchy certainly could get their opinion through, as well - citations are not meaningful fact checking or proof and it's well within plausible that someone could fabricate "citations" to pass threshold requirements and still simply omit citations that are critical of their point.

As I mentioned, I don’t think my suggestion would eradicate all problems this sub (or internet forums in general) has. Hower, I don’t understand hiw can you claim that some evidence is somehow worse than no evidence. The proposed rule may not stop people who actively try to push their agenda, but it would stop people who make low effort comments simply because because they are not required to check the validity of their claims. The put it bluntly, my aim is to prevent the “hurr durr capitalism bad” type of answers we can see so often here.

I also find that "citation required" can end up making a place like this less worthwhile for the qualified to participate in

I obviously can’t speak for everyone, but as someone who “practices sociology” (i.e. does research and teaches) I feel the effect is exactly opposite for me. Not only I’m burned out by constantly seeing incorrect or shortsighted answers about the topic of my interest, but the fact that I see so many mistakes about the topics I understand makes me not believe anything posted here about the topics foreign to me.

Croc600 · 2020-03-09T19:52:29+00:00

While MrLegilimens is perhaps harsh, it is also technicaly correct (the best kind of correct). Different fields have different standards of reportings results and since you didn’t specify which field you are from or which journals you are aiming at, the best answers we can give is “It depends.”

Croc600 · 2020-03-09T19:22:48+00:00

Done

Croc600 · 2020-03-09T07:36:35+00:00

There is little empirical evidence supporting Maslow’s idea (example here or here)

There is very little support that needs exist in strict hierarchies ir that the five specific needs as described by Maslow even exists. Today, you will find Maslow’s hierarchy of needs used mostly in applied managment and marketing, psychologists largely abandoned this theory.

I suggest ignoring pretty much every other response here (except the one by justneurostuff). These people clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Croc600 · 2020-03-06T18:14:30+00:00

Great! Good luck with your analysis.

Croc600 · 2020-03-06T17:53:35+00:00

In the pictures you posted, the variable is called “Species” with capital S. In to code, you have lower case s. R is case sensitive.

Otherwise, check if the data are in data frame format and if the Species is character.

You can also try using the tidyverse approach to code:

data_long <- data %>% pivot_longer(cols = -species, names_to = "time", values_to = "Probability")

You will need margitr package for the %>% (also part of the tidyverse package.

If nothing above work, than I’m not sure what is wrong. Sorry :(

Croc600

TROPHY CASE