In 1977John Tukey published a book called Exploratory Data Analysis. It introduced many new ways of analyzing dataall relatively simple. Most of the new ways involved plotting your data. A few involved transforming your data. Tukey’s broad point was that statisticians (taught by statistics professors) were missing a lot: Conventional statistics focussed too much on confirmatory data analysis (testing hypotheses) to the omission of exploratory data analysis — data analysis that might show you something new. Here are some tools to help you explore your dataTukey was saying.
No question the new tools are useful. I have found great benefits from graphing and transforming my data. No question that conventional statistics textbooks place far too little emphasis on graphs and transformations. But I no longer agree with Tukey’s exploratory versus confirmatory distinction. The distinction that matters — at least to historiansif not to data analysts — is between low-status and high-status. A more accurate title of Tukey’s book would have been Low-Status Data Analysis. Graphs and transformations are low-status. They are low-status because graphs are common and transformations are easy. Anyone can make a graph or transform their data. I believe they were neglected for that reason. To show their high statusstatistics professors focused their research and teaching on more difficult and esoteric stuff — like complicated regression. That the new stuff wasn’t terribly useful (compared to graphs and transformations) mattered little. Like all academics — like everyone — they cared enormously about showing high status. It was far more important to be impressive than to be useful. As Veblen showedit might have helped that the new stuff wasn’t very useful. “Applied” science is lower status than “pure” science.
That most of what statistics professors have developed (and taught) is less useful than graphs and transformations strikes me as utterly clear. My explanation is that in statisticsjust as in every other academic area I know aboutdesire to display status led to a lot of useless highly-visible work. (What Veblen called conspicuous waste.) Less visiblyit led to the best tools being neglected. Tukey saw the neglect – underdevelopment and underteaching of graphsfor example — but perhaps misdiagnosed the cause. Here’s why Tukey’s exploratory versus confirmatory distinction was misleading: Because the tools that Tukey promoted for exploration also improve confirmation. They are neglected everywhere. For example:
1. Graphs improve confirmatory data analysis. If you do a t test (or compute a p value in any way) but don’t make an associated graphthere is room for improvement. A graph will show whether the assumptions of the computation are reasonable. Often they aren’t.
2. Transformations improve confirmatory data analysis. That a good transformation will make the assumptions of the test more reasonable many people know. What few people seem to know is that a good transformation will make the statistical test more sensitive. If a difference existsthe test will be more likely to detect it. This is like increasing your sample size at no extra cost.
3. Exploratory data analysis is sometimes thought of as going beyond the question you started with to find other structure in the data — to explore your data. (Tukey saw it this way.) But to answer the question you started with as well as possible you should find all the structure in the data. Suppose my question is whether X has an effect. I should care whether Y and Z have an effect in order to (a) make my test of X more sensitive (by removing the effects of Y and Z) and (b) assess the generality of the effect of X (does it interact with Y or Z?).
Most statistics professors and their textbooks have neglected all uses of graphs and transformationsnot just their exploratory uses. I used to think exploratory data analysis (and exploratory science more generally) needed different tools than confirmatory data analysis and confirmatory science. Now I don’t. A big simplification.
Exploration (generating new ideas) and confirmation (testing old ideas) are outputs of data analysisnot inputs. To explore your data and to test ideas you already have you should do exactly the same analysis. What’s good for one is good for the other.
LikewiseFreakonomics could have been titled Low-status Economics. That’s essentially what it wasthe common theme. Levitt studied all sorts of things other economists thought were beneath them to study. That was Levitt’s real innovation — showing that these questions were neglected. Unsurprisinglythe general publicuninterested in the status of economistsfound the work more interesting than high-status economics. I’m sensitive to this because my self-experimentation was extremely low-status. It was useful (low-status)cheap (low-status)small (low-status)and anyone could do it (extremely low status).