3 ms·
> unlike Gelman, Nate Silver is a less likely to admit their model was off The irony is that Gelman has spent quite some time lately criticizing Silver et al.
by kgwgk 6y ago
> unlike Gelman, Nate Silver is a less likely to admit their model was off
The irony is that Gelman has spent quite some time lately criticizing Silver et al. for forcing too much uncertainty into their model.
- mcphage 6y ago> The irony is that Gelman has spent quite some time lately criticizing Silver et al. for forcing too much uncertainty into their model. IIRC Silver got the same criticisms just before the 2016 election, too—that the only reason 538 didn't have Clinton's odds in the upper 90s, and had Clinton losing Florida, were to drum up interest and attention at the end of the race.
- saeranv 6y agoGelman's criticism is a little different. It's not that 538 has too much uncertainty, but the way they created the uncertainty. The way I understand it (and I'm an amateur so I could be wrong), the criticism is that the 538 team basically fudged state-level uncertainties to get the presidential forecast uncertainty that looked right to them, with the result you get a lot of unrealisitic state-by-state breakdowns (i.e Trump wins New Jersey but can't win Alaska). Gelman's critique is not that the uncertainty is too big, but that it's not integrated correctly.