3 ms·
Yeah, except both of them are modeling how people will vote, and people change their minds. Saying that one should’ve held a constant chance of a candidate win
by ashtonkem 6y ago
Yeah, except both of them are modeling how people will vote, and people change their minds.
Saying that one should’ve held a constant chance of a candidate winning no matter what the polls do is frankly insane. This stance basically requires that you pretend that the outcome is determined and that voters opinions either don’t matter or don’t change. It’s utter nonsense, especially since we know that in 2016 undecided voters broke late for Trump. If your model doesn’t react to that, what are you even modeling?
- stopachka 6y agoTaleb’s point is not that your prediction should not change. His point is that if it does change, and frequently at that, the purported 90% chance at t(n) is bogus. That prediction needed to account for the volatility