3 ms·

Edit: as pointed out in the replies, I was wrong that the model was "explicitly" a now cast, and I would like future readers of my comment to know that without

by smeeth 6y ago

Edit: as pointed out in the replies, I was wrong that the model was "explicitly" a now cast, and I would like future readers of my comment to know that without deleting things. I would still like to note that there was clearly a change in the 2020 model to increase variance as a function of time to the election when compared to the 2016 model. I think this is substantively the same. Some of the top comments are making the same mistake, probably because they aren't aware of this twitter beef history (and I envy them), so I'm putting this in a separate comment. These comments are all pointing out that Taleb's criticism is of something that Silver's models don't do: > the election were to happen today, what is the probability of each candidate winning? What people seem to be forgetting, is that Silver's 2016 model explicitly did this. Taleb made his criticisms starting in 2018 (even published an options pricing paper on the subject) then Silver changed his model for the 2020 cycle so that it no longer was an "if the election were today" model. I can't say for sure whether or not Silver changed his model because of Taleb, buuuuut he deserves at least a little credit here. Yes, I know Taleb is a colossal asshole people love to hate, but he's usually right about these sorts of things. Here is a pretty fair and balanced take on it for those who would like to read more: https://towardsdatascience.com/why-you-should-care-about-the-nate-silver-vs-nassim-taleb-twitter-war-a581dce1f5fc https://towardsdatascience.com/why-you-should-care-about-the...

moultano 6y ago
This isn't true. He had both a "nowcast" (if the election were held today) and a prediction of the final result. The only change in that regard between 2016 and now was to stop publishing the nowcast. Edit: Even after your edit I don't think the claim is true. The probabilities in this election didn't change much because the campaign season was comparatively uneventful and the polling didn't change much, not because of a fundamental change in the model. 2016 had tons of bombshell events which is what caused the chaos in the prediction model.
ashtonkem 6y ago
One of 538’s models did that in 2016, not all of them. They made it very clear that they did not recommend the “nowcast” because it tended to confuse people.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What people seem to be forgetting, is that Silver's 2016 model explicitly did this. Well, there was a sub model (the “nowcast”) in the 2016 (and, IIRC, earlier) forecasts that did this, but the headline model did not, it's always been a forecast of the election day results. > I can't say for sure whether or not Silver changed his model because of Taleb, buuuuut he deserves at least a little credit here. The change you are describing literally did not happen. The headline model was never an “if the election were held today model”, so it cannot have changed from that to something else. Giving Taleb credit for that change is as sensible as giving Trump credit for ending the COVID-19 pandemic.

by smeeth 6y ago

moultano 6y ago

This isn't true. He had both a "nowcast" (if the election were held today) and a prediction of the final result. The only change in that regard between 2016 and now was to stop publishing the nowcast. Edit: Even after your edit I don't think the claim is true. The probabilities in this election didn't change much because the campaign season was comparatively uneventful and the polling didn't change much, not because of a fundamental change in the model. 2016 had tons of bombshell events which is what caused the chaos in the prediction model.

ashtonkem 6y ago

One of 538’s models did that in 2016, not all of them. They made it very clear that they did not recommend the “nowcast” because it tended to confuse people.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> What people seem to be forgetting, is that Silver's 2016 model explicitly did this. Well, there was a sub model (the “nowcast”) in the 2016 (and, IIRC, earlier) forecasts that did this, but the headline model did not, it's always been a forecast of the election day results. > I can't say for sure whether or not Silver changed his model because of Taleb, buuuuut he deserves at least a little credit here. The change you are describing literally did not happen. The headline model was never an “if the election were held today model”, so it cannot have changed from that to something else. Giving Taleb credit for that change is as sensible as giving Trump credit for ending the COVID-19 pandemic.