This is some damning info. Not only as evidence of outright fraud, but also of incompetence in that fraud. Uniformly generating something that's obviously not uniform, not even paying attention to fonts (!), and fabricating your result by adjusting not the collected "current" data, but rather the baseline data.
Ariely's response[1] to this puts the fraud on the insurance company. He rightly notes that better data anomaly testing would have caught this, but I also wonder why the company "knew" which hypothesis to put their thumb on? And where did the impetus come from to double the number of records rather than leave N=6,744?
Ariely's response[1] to this puts the fraud on the insurance company. He rightly notes that better data anomaly testing would have caught this, but I also wonder why the company "knew" which hypothesis to put their thumb on? And where did the impetus come from to double the number of records rather than leave N=6,744?
[1] http://datacolada.org/storage_strong/DanBlogComment_Aug_16_2...