3 ms·

> I would argue 538 made a similar error[1], but unlike Gelman, Nate Silver is a less likely to admit their model was off, and consequently examine/discuss the

• saeranv 6y ago
  In a lot of small ways, Gelman (and the Economist team) engage in more transparency, and self-critique about forecasting practices relative to the 538 team. I don't mean to come off as a Nate Silver hater. My criticism is made with a lot of affection, and awareness of how much he discusses the role of uncertainty in his work. But the Economist team has made some legitimate critiques of some wacky tail behavior in the 538 model[1] which Nate Silver has basically dismissed without engaging, whereas the Economist team has written plenty critiquing their own model[2]. I mean this is Gelman's whole schtick about the scientific process: he thinks that errors are to be expected and should be transparently discussed and fixed and iteratively improved over time. That's partly why they've released all their code on Github, and Gelman has sort of poked at 538 for not doing the same with their code. [1] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-engineering-the-problematic-tail-behavior-of-the-fivethirtyeight-presidential-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-en... [2] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-engineering-the-problematic-tail-behavior-of-the-fivethirtyeight-presidential-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-en...
• peteretep 6y ago
  People hate Nate because he’s pretty ruthless in calling out bullshit and there’s a great deal of bullshit produced by amateurs and professionals on both sides