4 ms·

The parent commenter is which the author of this blog post expressed their confidence in this analysis as a percentage, i.e. I'm 65% sure that Russia will lose;

The parent commenter is which the author of this blog post expressed their confidence in this analysis as a percentage, i.e. I'm 65% sure that Russia will lose; or I give Russia a 65% change of winning. That way it's easy to compare different opinions and see who was "more right".

maw 5y ago
It gives actual insight into prognosticators' accuracy. If their 90%s are right about nine times out of ten, their 60%s six out of ten, and so on, then they're pretty good. If they're not then they're not.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  Subjective certainty is not objective accuracy. Throwing out percentages without methodology and test data bolstering that methodology amounts to persuasion.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    A prediction with no indication of subjective certainty is not a prediction.
aerovistae 5y ago
I sort of lost faith in percentage guesses the night of the 2016 US elections when I watched the NYTimes prediction flip from >95% Clinton wins to >99% Trump wins in a matter of seconds. It really opened my eyes to how illusory the utility of the percentage was - if it can flip that hard that fast, clearly it was never really only a <5% chance of happening, and the guesser really didn't know anything meaningful. It's astrology for the educated.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  If bad predictions make you lose faith in percentages as a whole, why don't lies make you lose faith in words as a whole? In both cases I would assign the fault with the errant speaker.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  Because their predictions were based on how correct polling was, and once they found gross errors in the polling they adjusted.
- Ariarule 5y ago
  While the change in who was favored to win the 2016 election was indeed large, it didn't change that dramatically and didn't change in seconds. The NYT 2016 prediction chart is still available on their site: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president The labeling on the horizontal axis on the chart is terrible, but roughly this is a change from 20% to 95% in about 2 or 3 hours. It doesn't look like they ever had it at less than 15% (again, give or take a few points due to bad infographic-esque picture).
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > I watched the NYTimes prediction flip from >95% Clinton wins to >99% Trump wins in a matter of seconds. Did that really happen? The numbers I remember before the election were about 67% chance of Clinton, though I don't recall the NYT. On election night, I recall Clinton not doing well from the start.

maw 5y ago

It gives actual insight into prognosticators' accuracy. If their 90%s are right about nine times out of ten, their 60%s six out of ten, and so on, then they're pretty good. If they're not then they're not.

smitty1e 5y ago
Subjective certainty is not objective accuracy. Throwing out percentages without methodology and test data bolstering that methodology amounts to persuasion.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  A prediction with no indication of subjective certainty is not a prediction.

aerovistae 5y ago

I sort of lost faith in percentage guesses the night of the 2016 US elections when I watched the NYTimes prediction flip from >95% Clinton wins to >99% Trump wins in a matter of seconds. It really opened my eyes to how illusory the utility of the percentage was - if it can flip that hard that fast, clearly it was never really only a <5% chance of happening, and the guesser really didn't know anything meaningful. It's astrology for the educated.

whatshisface 5y ago
If bad predictions make you lose faith in percentages as a whole, why don't lies make you lose faith in words as a whole? In both cases I would assign the fault with the errant speaker.
anothernewdude 5y ago
Because their predictions were based on how correct polling was, and once they found gross errors in the polling they adjusted.
Ariarule 5y ago
While the change in who was favored to win the 2016 election was indeed large, it didn't change that dramatically and didn't change in seconds. The NYT 2016 prediction chart is still available on their site: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president The labeling on the horizontal axis on the chart is terrible, but roughly this is a change from 20% to 95% in about 2 or 3 hours. It doesn't look like they ever had it at less than 15% (again, give or take a few points due to bad infographic-esque picture).
wolverine876 5y ago
> I watched the NYTimes prediction flip from >95% Clinton wins to >99% Trump wins in a matter of seconds. Did that really happen? The numbers I remember before the election were about 67% chance of Clinton, though I don't recall the NYT. On election night, I recall Clinton not doing well from the start.