3 ms·

I think that you would agree that null is not a correct prediction, so clearly the Silver model has failed for those votes.

Jtsummers 10y ago
Null is neither correct nor incorrect. If I don't play a game of chess today and you do, I haven't lost anything. I simply haven't played. The world is not binary. This claim is tantamount to a schoolyard taunt like, "If you don't fight me, you're a coward." And claiming victory when your opponent wasn't even at school that day to hear the taunt.
- isidoreSeville 10y ago
  Right, but if you play chess against a lot of children and crush them 100% of the time and I play against moderately experienced players and win 90% of the time, I'm probably better at chess
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Fine. Fuck the analogies because yours isn't even close to the actual situation. At the time of the writing on the article I posted as a rebuttal: Each time both Silver and Diggler predicted results they agreed except for 8 states. When they didn't agree, they had an equal number of correct results (and incorrect results), 4-4. They're effectively tied. The ones that aren't predicted indicate nothing about Silver's methods other than a lack of sufficient data to put through his models. Which says something to his ethos. He doesn't just make wild stabs in the dark like a typical pundit when he doesn't have the data to back up his prediction. EDIT: Cleaned up the second paragraph. EDIT FURTHER: I suppose it's my fault. Chess was the wrong analogy if someone were to pick an analogy. It's played head-to-head, and comparison to people that aren't playing against each other requires more complex analysis. The situation here is two parties participating in an open contest, where everyone can win, everyone can lose, or something in between can occur. The point still stands. Someone not participating in a given contest doesn't equate to losing. They just aren't competing.

Jtsummers 10y ago

Null is neither correct nor incorrect. If I don't play a game of chess today and you do, I haven't lost anything. I simply haven't played. The world is not binary. This claim is tantamount to a schoolyard taunt like, "If you don't fight me, you're a coward." And claiming victory when your opponent wasn't even at school that day to hear the taunt.

isidoreSeville 10y ago
Right, but if you play chess against a lot of children and crush them 100% of the time and I play against moderately experienced players and win 90% of the time, I'm probably better at chess
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Fine. Fuck the analogies because yours isn't even close to the actual situation. At the time of the writing on the article I posted as a rebuttal: Each time both Silver and Diggler predicted results they agreed except for 8 states. When they didn't agree, they had an equal number of correct results (and incorrect results), 4-4. They're effectively tied. The ones that aren't predicted indicate nothing about Silver's methods other than a lack of sufficient data to put through his models. Which says something to his ethos. He doesn't just make wild stabs in the dark like a typical pundit when he doesn't have the data to back up his prediction. EDIT: Cleaned up the second paragraph. EDIT FURTHER: I suppose it's my fault. Chess was the wrong analogy if someone were to pick an analogy. It's played head-to-head, and comparison to people that aren't playing against each other requires more complex analysis. The situation here is two parties participating in an open contest, where everyone can win, everyone can lose, or something in between can occur. The point still stands. Someone not participating in a given contest doesn't equate to losing. They just aren't competing.