9 ms·

There was quite a big argument between Nate Silver, from 538, and G. Elliott Morris, the author of this model, which was quite an entertaining read if you’re in

There was quite a big argument between Nate Silver, from 538, and G. Elliott Morris, the author of this model, which was quite an entertaining read if you’re into statistical drama. A piece of it: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1294263127668924416?s=20 https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1294263127668924416...

Tarq0n 6y ago
Andrew Gelman weighs into this much more thoughtfully here: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fivethirtyeight-com-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fiveth....
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Important to note here that Andrew Gelman is involved in the Economist model (which increases my prior that its correct, even though it shouldn't).
  - wirrbel 6y ago
    well, its a well-informed meta-prior that when Gelman is involved, the model won't be absurd :-)
- iaw 6y ago
  > "The first thing to say is that 72% and 89% can correspond to vote forecasts and associated uncertainties that are a lot closer than you might think." I'm with Nate Silver on this one, 72% and 89% are as close as 75% and 50% in terms of being double the likelihood for a Republican win. We will likely never know which model is more accurate but given Nate Silvers history on these predictions I trust him a bit more than others.
  - quico 6y ago
    > "72% and 89% are as close as 75% and 50% in terms of being double the likelihood for a Republican win." In a postscript (P.S.) Andrew Gelman clarified that the forecast distributions are close and not the probabilities of winning [0]. > "I’m not saying that 72% and 89% are close in probabilistic terms. I agree that there’s a big difference between 8-1 odds and 3-1 odds. What I’m saying is that the large difference in these probabilities arises from small differences in the forecast distributions. Changing a forecast from 0.54 +/- 0.02 to 0.53 +/- 0.025 is highly consequential to the win probability, but as uncertainty distributions they are similar and they are hard to distinguish directly. You can get much different headline probabilities from similar underlying distributions." [0]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fivethirtyeight-com-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fiveth...
mdoms 6y ago
Nate Silver got lucky one time and has been coasting on it since. The man has no credibility.
- garmaine 6y ago
  He’s been consistently more right (less wrong?) than the mainstream media. This hasn’t been a one off thing.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > He’s been consistently more right (less wrong?) than the mainstream media. Well, once he rose to popularity, 538 has been part of the mainstream media, affiliated with the NYTimes, then owned by ESPN, then transferred within the Disney Empire to ABC News. But, sure, it's pretty consistently been one of the better (not just election) statistical forecasting shops in the mainstream media.
  - hoorayimhelping 6y ago
    That's the whole point, I think. We're saying, "he's better at predicting things than the mainstream media!" The issue is that the mainstream media's bar is so low, there is no bar. And the reason this guy is somewhat respected is because his bar is only slightly higher than rat shit, which seems amazing compared to what we're used to. The guy sucks at actually modelling outcomes. Because everyone does. He just sucks very slightly less than everyone else. Maybe the issue isn't that Nate Silver is slightly better than average, maybe the issue is that we shouldn't be sharing this garbage on the news, since it's not reflective of reality. It's like saying, "sure, Cuba is a human rights nightmare, but it's okay to trade and interact with them, cause at least it ain't the Congo!"
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Asking for people to not make or publish predictions is asking for the sun to not rise. You'll never see that day. Being less wrong is the best option that is actually on the table.
- 6y ago
WoahNoun 6y ago
His tone comes off as very defensive about his own work rather than constructive criticism of the Economist model. >In that sense, the best tip-off that the forecasts are different is they have Biden at 97% to win the popular vote, and have sometimes been as high as 98% (and 99% before they revised their model) whereas we are at 82%. You're getting up to 97-98%, you're getting VERY confident.
- TMWNN 6y ago
  >You're getting up to 97-98%, you're getting VERY confident. Silver made the same point about probability before the 2016 election, and got into a similar Twitter argument (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffingto...). One guess on who proved to be correct.
  - WoahNoun 6y ago
    Winning the election != winning the popular vote. There are plenty of qualitative reasons to believe the popular vote distribution matches the Economist model. He isn't arguing about how they came up with distribution. He is arguing that the particular kind of distribution is unreasonable in all instances. Which I disagree with. There are plenty of places in statistical modeling where a narrow head makes absolute sense.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    Nobody was “proved to be correct”, because the winner of a poll does not by itself show anything about the probability of that particular candidate having won.
    - martingoodson 6y ago
      The probability of winning is based on the popular support for a candidate. The poll directly measures that support. How can it possibly not 'show anything about the probability of that particular candidate having won'?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Tarq0n 6y ago

Andrew Gelman weighs into this much more thoughtfully here: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fivethirtyeight-com-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fiveth....

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Important to note here that Andrew Gelman is involved in the Economist model (which increases my prior that its correct, even though it shouldn't).
- wirrbel 6y ago
  well, its a well-informed meta-prior that when Gelman is involved, the model won't be absurd :-)
iaw 6y ago
> "The first thing to say is that 72% and 89% can correspond to vote forecasts and associated uncertainties that are a lot closer than you might think." I'm with Nate Silver on this one, 72% and 89% are as close as 75% and 50% in terms of being double the likelihood for a Republican win. We will likely never know which model is more accurate but given Nate Silvers history on these predictions I trust him a bit more than others.
- quico 6y ago
  > "72% and 89% are as close as 75% and 50% in terms of being double the likelihood for a Republican win." In a postscript (P.S.) Andrew Gelman clarified that the forecast distributions are close and not the probabilities of winning [0]. > "I’m not saying that 72% and 89% are close in probabilistic terms. I agree that there’s a big difference between 8-1 odds and 3-1 odds. What I’m saying is that the large difference in these probabilities arises from small differences in the forecast distributions. Changing a forecast from 0.54 +/- 0.02 to 0.53 +/- 0.025 is highly consequential to the win probability, but as uncertainty distributions they are similar and they are hard to distinguish directly. You can get much different headline probabilities from similar underlying distributions." [0]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fivethirtyeight-com-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/08/14/new-fiveth...

mdoms 6y ago

Nate Silver got lucky one time and has been coasting on it since. The man has no credibility.

garmaine 6y ago
He’s been consistently more right (less wrong?) than the mainstream media. This hasn’t been a one off thing.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > He’s been consistently more right (less wrong?) than the mainstream media. Well, once he rose to popularity, 538 has been part of the mainstream media, affiliated with the NYTimes, then owned by ESPN, then transferred within the Disney Empire to ABC News. But, sure, it's pretty consistently been one of the better (not just election) statistical forecasting shops in the mainstream media.
- hoorayimhelping 6y ago
  That's the whole point, I think. We're saying, "he's better at predicting things than the mainstream media!" The issue is that the mainstream media's bar is so low, there is no bar. And the reason this guy is somewhat respected is because his bar is only slightly higher than rat shit, which seems amazing compared to what we're used to. The guy sucks at actually modelling outcomes. Because everyone does. He just sucks very slightly less than everyone else. Maybe the issue isn't that Nate Silver is slightly better than average, maybe the issue is that we shouldn't be sharing this garbage on the news, since it's not reflective of reality. It's like saying, "sure, Cuba is a human rights nightmare, but it's okay to trade and interact with them, cause at least it ain't the Congo!"
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Asking for people to not make or publish predictions is asking for the sun to not rise. You'll never see that day. Being less wrong is the best option that is actually on the table.
6y ago

WoahNoun 6y ago

His tone comes off as very defensive about his own work rather than constructive criticism of the Economist model. >In that sense, the best tip-off that the forecasts are different is they have Biden at 97% to win the popular vote, and have sometimes been as high as 98% (and 99% before they revised their model) whereas we are at 82%. You're getting up to 97-98%, you're getting VERY confident.

TMWNN 6y ago
>You're getting up to 97-98%, you're getting VERY confident. Silver made the same point about probability before the 2016 election, and got into a similar Twitter argument (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffingto...). One guess on who proved to be correct.
- WoahNoun 6y ago
  Winning the election != winning the popular vote. There are plenty of qualitative reasons to believe the popular vote distribution matches the Economist model. He isn't arguing about how they came up with distribution. He is arguing that the particular kind of distribution is unreasonable in all instances. Which I disagree with. There are plenty of places in statistical modeling where a narrow head makes absolute sense.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Nobody was “proved to be correct”, because the winner of a poll does not by itself show anything about the probability of that particular candidate having won.
  - martingoodson 6y ago
    The probability of winning is based on the popular support for a candidate. The poll directly measures that support. How can it possibly not 'show anything about the probability of that particular candidate having won'?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]