3 ms·
In the scope of this thread - Silver v. Taleb - there's no need to mention the layperson's memory of their internal prediction. We know that 538 had a 30% chan
by edmundsauto 6y ago
In the scope of this thread - Silver v. Taleb - there's no need to mention the layperson's memory of their internal prediction. We know that 538 had a 30% chance of a Trump victory, which is the relevant piece of information - not our perception.
- pwinnski 6y agoI disagree. Taleb's key assertion seems to be that Silver should never have given Clinton a 90% chance of winning with the level of uncertainty in that race. But there were times when Trump having only a 10% of winning seemed completely justified, and I think to say otherwise at this point seems like projecting backward with hindsight.