4 ms·
I was following the website frequently at the time and I fully agree. Bur I was just commenting that that the author is spot-on at least in that many readers d
by Kurtz79 8y ago
I was following the website frequently at the time and I fully agree.
Bur I was just commenting that that the author is spot-on at least in that many readers do not take these explanations into account and they see just 28.6% of winning chance and they automatically convert it to 0% in their mind.
And the explanation is that they don't understand math and probability (or don't want to), whether the author likes it or not.
- coryfklein 8y agoI still don't get why the author thinks it's OK to assign blame to 538 for readers interpreting things incorrectly when Nate clearly spends a significant amount of time trying to educate the readers on how to interpret. It makes no sense to me to hold 538 accountable for readers interpretations of the data. If I wander into some realm of science I'm unfamiliar with (say, quantum mechanics) and start making false inferences from it, does that mean the scientists were misleading me?