|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that.
How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like?
|
On March 01 2017 00:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:On March 01 2017 00:27 IgnE wrote:On February 28 2017 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:
Elimination of the EC is a worthy cause but it's never going to happen. There's too many people who think it'll turn the USA into California's colony.
I think eliminating FPTP is a more feasible goal, since you could sell it to both left-wingers and right-wingers that it means you could vote in more left-wing/more right-wing candidates than the scum you're getting right now. X thing we've never done before is never gonna happen because of reasons I made up right now But Y thing we've never done before, let me tell you, it can happen for real because of other reasons I made up right now. Believe me on this I know what I'm talking about. Yes I'm aware both are unprecedented in the USA. But I'm arguing from a sense of practicality. Half the country loves the EC because it benefits them. That argument's been fought to death and no resolution is in sight. On the other hand, most of the population isn't exposed to alternative voting systems, so that's an undiscovered country. We don't know what the results of that proposal would be yet. Looks like somebody doesn't have a clue about the inertia of gerrymandering and how well liked it is by whichever party is in power. And that's not even getting into the massive campaign necessary to convince voters to pressure representatives to change to something they have no clue about (replace it with what? You're a little heavy on the eliminate end). This isn't just some bill like VAWA whatever, let's do it--it's constitutional amendment & state ratification. As much as I seldom find myself agreeing with Igne, he's dead on in the pie-in-the-sky diagnosis.
I don't see the relevance of gerrymandering to this.
Replace FPTP with instant-runoff, I've mentioned that so many times already that I thought it was becoming repetitive. But I guess I should be clearer for every single post I make.
Let's keep in mind here that Constitutional amendments over more frivolous matters have already been ratified, like the 20th and 27th. I don't think it would be such a mountainous task as you think it would be, the hardest part is getting the ball rolling.
|
On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like?
In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls.
|
On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that.
They just shouldn’t try to predict the outcome of elections. Or anything. Just don’t bother, it isn’t worth it. We end up in discussions like this, with limited information and a poor understanding of how they came to the results.
|
On March 01 2017 00:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. They just shouldn’t try to predict the outcome of elections. Or anything. Just don’t bother, it isn’t worth it. We end up in discussions like this, with limited information and a poor understanding of how they came to the results.
I have no problems with that. My point was simply that when one of the most powerful media group in the US predicts 85% X and over 4 hours it goes to 85% Y, someone fucked up.
|
On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that.
It makes a lot of sense. You just don't understand what statistics mean. Do you have access to dice? Take a normal, 6-sided die. Right now. Take it in your hand. Anyone studying maths, even in high school, can tell you that the probability of NOT rolling a 1 is about 83% (assuming the die is well-made). Now, roll that die. Do you think that if you roll a one, everyone who has any degree in maths is wrong? Or that it was wrong to say that the probability is 83% to not roll a 1, because you rolled a 1?
I do not know how the NYT arrived at those 85%. But just saying "It didn't happen, so it didn't have an 85% chance of happening" is a silly argument. That is not how statistics work. Stuff with more than 90% probability of happening regularly doesn't happen. As someone said, play some X-Com.
If you want to attack those 85%, you need to attack the way they were calculated. If there was a major mistake there, that is reasonable critique. But "I think 85% chance of happening means "certain to happen"" isn't valid critique of the number, it just says that you have no idea about statistics.
On March 01 2017 00:53 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:50 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. They just shouldn’t try to predict the outcome of elections. Or anything. Just don’t bother, it isn’t worth it. We end up in discussions like this, with limited information and a poor understanding of how they came to the results. I have no problems with that. My point was simply that when one of the most powerful media group in the US predicts 85% X and over 4 hours it goes to 85% Y, someone fucked up.
No, it just means that there is now more information available then before. If you are playing Texas Hold Em, your probability of winning can change dramatically based on which cards are on the table. So from one card draw to the next, your chance of winning might suddenly be greatly reduced.
|
On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls.
Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut?
What Simberto just said.
|
No. No. No. Electors' votes are not a dice roll, neither a coinflip. They are dictated by what politicians say, socio-economical conditions, etc etc etc. NYT miscalculated those deeply. Why are you still putting up excuses for it?
|
On March 01 2017 00:53 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:50 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. They just shouldn’t try to predict the outcome of elections. Or anything. Just don’t bother, it isn’t worth it. We end up in discussions like this, with limited information and a poor understanding of how they came to the results. I have no problems with that. My point was simply that when one of the most powerful media group in the US predicts 85% X and over 4 hours it goes to 85% Y, someone fucked up.
If you assume that 85% means 100%, I guess one could see it that way. I would say that their model did was missing key factors which they may not have been aware of. Or the 15% unlikely thing happened, which was always an outcome that was possible.
Predicting the outcome of elections and how people will vote is like predicting the weather. Its hard and an imperfect science due to an inability to collect all the relevant data.
|
On March 01 2017 00:53 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:50 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. They just shouldn’t try to predict the outcome of elections. Or anything. Just don’t bother, it isn’t worth it. We end up in discussions like this, with limited information and a poor understanding of how they came to the results. I have no problems with that. My point was simply that when one of the most powerful media group in the US predicts 85% X and over 4 hours it goes to 85% Y, someone fucked up.
The world is a very different place from 2012 and 2008. As you mentioned, polls and previous results are a big contributor to election probabilities. But during times of large-scale media and sociological change, using previous trends is less helpful. The 2016 election took place at the perfect moment in our post-internet society for all of our previous methods of predicting elections to be wrong. Clinton's campaign strategy was wrong because it was old and inflexible. Trump's was dysfunctional, but morphing and adapting real-time. Trump won by playing the new game. Statisticians and democrats lost by playing the old game.
My point regarding statisticians is that they used proper, proven methods that would be used to assess probability in other situations. They adapted these methods to the general election and relied on methods that have historically been very successful. Don't forget how well Nate Silver predicted 2008 and 2012. Him fucking up is not a sign of incompetence, but rather confirmation of just how fast the world is changing in a lot of different ways.
|
On March 01 2017 00:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls. Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut?
No, it means their polls (and instruments to understand what the american population believes) are shit-tier.
|
On March 01 2017 00:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:53 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:50 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. They just shouldn’t try to predict the outcome of elections. Or anything. Just don’t bother, it isn’t worth it. We end up in discussions like this, with limited information and a poor understanding of how they came to the results. I have no problems with that. My point was simply that when one of the most powerful media group in the US predicts 85% X and over 4 hours it goes to 85% Y, someone fucked up. The world is a very different place from 2012 and 2008. As you mentioned, polls and previous results are a big contributor to election probabilities. But during times of large-scale media and sociological change, using previous trends is less helpful. The 2016 election took place at the perfect moment in our post-internet society for all of our previous methods of predicting elections to be wrong. Clinton's campaign strategy was wrong because it was old and inflexible. Trump's was dysfunctional, but morphing and adapting real-time. Trump won by playing the new game. Statisticians and democrats lost by playing the old game. My point regarding statisticians is that they used proper, proven methods that would be used to assess probability in other situations. They adapted these methods to the general election and relied on methods that have historically been very successful. Don't forget how well Nate Silver predicted 2008 and 2012. Him fucking up is not a sign of incompetence, but rather confirmation of just how fast the world is changing in a lot of different ways.
I agree - however, I feel most of the media (which should naturally ask questions) did not understand the change at all and this is very serious. It really means that people lived in two different worlds.
|
On March 01 2017 00:59 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:57 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls. Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut? No, it means their polls (and instruments to understand what the american population believes) are shit-tier.
The data was the problem, not the methods used to make sense of the data.
edit: The data was not wrong. The data was not good data to use for predicting the 2016 election.
|
On March 01 2017 00:59 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:57 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls. Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut? No, it means their polls (and instruments to understand what the american population believes) are shit-tier.
Polls can be wrong. They are not perfect tool. And you can’t tell if the poll was wrong until after the thing you were polling about happens. Also because polls are published, they impact future polls. People may not respond or could change their mind in the last couple of days.
|
On March 01 2017 00:58 SoSexy wrote:
No. No. No. Electors' votes are not a dice roll, neither a coinflip. They are dictated by what politicians say, socio-economical conditions, etc etc etc. NYT miscalculated those deeply. Why are you still putting up excuses for it?
In what field are you getting a PhD, if you are this bad at understanding basic statistics? Whether it's a coinflip or a weather forecast, there is uncertainty involved.
If you say, it is not a stochastic process at all, and the NYT is predicting who will win (lets say with a crystal ball) and then inventing their 85% in order to make it seem like they are using statistical modelling, you might have a point (then I will just argue you're a tinfoil hat loonie, and stop responding).
|
On March 01 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:59 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:57 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls. Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut? No, it means their polls (and instruments to understand what the american population believes) are shit-tier. Polls can be wrong. They are not perfect tool. And you can’t tell if the poll was wrong until after the thing you were polling about happens. Also because polls are published, they impact future polls. People may not respond or could change their mind in the last couple of days.
Of course. But i'm sure you would agree that if the final result is (stupid example) 6-1, the guy who predicted 5-1 is closer to reality than the guy who predicted 1-6?
|
Acrofales how many strawmen do you wanna use? Just answer this question: did the NYT do a good job in predicting the 2016 US elections? Yes or no. The rest are just cheap insults that you like to throw to strengthen your ego. I argue that it did terrible.
|
On March 01 2017 01:07 SoSexy wrote:
Acrofales how many strawmen do you wanna use? Just answer this question: did the NYT do a good job in predicting the 2016 US elections? Yes or no. The rest is just cheap insults that you like to throw to strenghten your ego.
They weren't predicting. They gave a statistical estimate. If you throw the NYT die, on average it will land Trump 15 out of a 100 times. We just happen to live in one of those 15 worlds.
Or maybe the underlying data was wrong. That's also a possibility, and the actual a priori chances of Trump winning were far higher than 85% (and 538 used a different model in which they only estimated a 71% chance of a Clinton victory).
But just because the less likely outcome happened doesn't automatically mean the a priori model was wrong. Immediately jumping to that conclusion is just a horrid understanding of probabilities.
|
On March 01 2017 00:59 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 00:57 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On February 28 2017 23:58 SoSexy wrote:
Never forget that '85% chances of Clinton winning' on the NYT website before the counting of votes started. What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls. Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut? No, it means their polls (and instruments to understand what the american population believes) are shit-tier.
So you are reposting your claim that their polls are bad because you see one result? If you roll the dice once and get snake eyes when someone told you that it only happens 1/36 of the time, that didn't mean that they are wrong. The percentage is going to be much closer to what the prediction is if you roll 1,000 times, and even closer after 1 million times.
|
On March 01 2017 01:04 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2017 00:59 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:57 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2017 00:47 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:43 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On March 01 2017 00:37 SoSexy wrote:On March 01 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
What is your statistics background? Are you aware that things with a 1% chance of happening, do indeed happen every day? Its not like once something makes it past 60%, it is a guarantee. Indeed. But I expected one of the biggest american newspaper to have access to better resources than me at home. But that's the thing. A PhD statistician can give something an 86% chance of happening, and it does not mean it will happen. A legion of statisticians can tirelessly work to give the most accurate probability as possible, but it will always be a probability. There is no shame in something with an 86% chance of happening, not happening. Rolling snake eyes has a 2.7% chance of happening, but it happens. Your defense makes no sense. Applying this logic, one could defend basically everything because there is a 'chance of it happening'. Decisions do not work in this way. In short, they could have been more careful and just put a 60%. I would have been happier with that. How do you think probabilities are calculated? What do you think the process looks like? In a presidential election? Probably a mix of past results and recent polls. Yes. And they are then combined using statistical techniques to calculate the likelihood for that event. If that process says there's an 86% chance of it happening, you then think they should post "60% chance" because they "need to be more careful"? Wut? No, it means their polls (and instruments to understand what the american population believes) are shit-tier. Polls can be wrong. They are not perfect tool. And you can’t tell if the poll was wrong until after the thing you were polling about happens. Also because polls are published, they impact future polls. People may not respond or could change their mind in the last couple of days. Of course. But i'm sure you would agree that if the final result is (stupid example) 6-1, the guy who predicted 5-1 is closer to reality than the guy who predicted 1-6?
Sure, if that is the way you want to view statistics, in a binary "Winner/loser" sense. But someone is always going to get it wrong. That isn’t the interesting part of the discussion. Finding out what the NYTs and other people missed and why is far more interesting.
Unless the goal is to shit on the New York Times, then I guess pointing at their predictions is productive on that front.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
