6 ms·

The reason these 24 people's opinions are significant is obviously not that their votes are going to affect the outcome of the election. It's that they are exp

by pg 14y ago

The reason these 24 people's opinions are significant is obviously not that their votes are going to affect the outcome of the election. It's that they are experts on growth, which seems to be one of the most important issues in the election.

chacham15 14y ago
Well, I dont know how you asked them, but from what it seems their decision on who to vote for may be a result of many different issues. For example, the two candidates have very different views on abortion, how to deal with Iran, Libya, etc. Therefore, your comment is only applicable if you had asked: "which candidate do you think is more capable of growing the economy?" An interesting followup to that question may be to what degree do you think that either of the candidates can grow the economy? This would be to ascertain not just who may be better but also how good is the candidate. Do they believe that both candidates are bad and they are simply choosing the lesser of two evils? Lastly, I would ask, "what historical evidence do you rely on to make your decision?" I'd like to ask this to determine how these people are making their decisions. For example, do they have an explanation for why Obama hasn't grown the economy in the last four years or an explanation for why Romney's past performance qualifies him. Or is the explanation more humanistic: "Obama seems like a more trustworthy guy."
ivankirigin 14y ago
But you didn't ask them which they thought would drive the most growth. You asked which they prefer, which is personal.
- pg 14y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "personal." I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. But it seemed to me telling that while Romney presents himself as a businessman who can solve our problems with growth, rather than a politician, the real growth experts have more of an affinity for his opponent. If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. That's what makes this poll significant. The leaders of the startup community don't have the natural affinity they'd have for him if they believed his claims. Which in turn is fairly good evidence they're false.
  - chacham15 14y ago
    > I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. > If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. These two statements are contradictory.
    - pg 14y ago
      I don't understand why you think that.
      - chacham15 14y ago
        The second statement assumes that the reason Romney is not popular with people in the valley is because he does not appear to be what he claims. This contradicts the first statement because it says that we don't know why these people prefer one candidate over another. To be more concrete, people could strongly dislike Romney's stance on abortion. In that case, it would not matter whether Romney appears or does not appear to be what he claims to be, that individual still would not like him.
        pg 14y ago
        No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he claims. Suppose a restaurant is unpopular, due to bad food, bad service, high cost, whatever. There's no contradiction in expecting it would become more popular if a movie star started to hang out there every night. We're now arguing about basic logic. I've found threads are usually irrecoverable at that point, so if you don't mind, I'm done.
        chacham15 14y ago
        I think that you are missing the heart of the matter. That is that the only piece of data that you have is popularity. Given that, how can you determine how well Romney was what he tries to seem? To put this into the context of your restaurant example, how can you differentiate between a restaurant that is unpopular otherwise but has a movie star and a restaurant with the same level of popularity but no movie star (with the movie star being analogous to Romney being what he tries to seem)? I'm sorry if you do not like these kinds of arguments as I try to involve as much base logic as I can. I think that base logic is to arguments what functions are to algorithms. Furthermore, sticking to logic results in an argument at least on the level of DH4 in your essay "How to Disagree."
001sky 14y ago
I think this would make a better essay topic. Tokenadult is right, that the revealed preferences by themselves are not really news. And yet to read any-more into the data is unsound.[1] To the extent there is a benefit from your insight, it should be flushed out in detail (ie, to convey & understand the micro-analytics). You may (and probably, do) have this all in your head already. But it does not come out either in the posted article or in your comment. Relevant > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity* ___________ [1] A more detailed explantion is as follows: Notwithstanding the substance (ie, the politics), we see an argument of the form: Binary (0,1)=F(X1...Xn) | (challenger, incumbent) ie Vote = Function of (...) So this equation is approximated: (0,1) = f X1(party affiliation)+X2(vote in last election)...XN-1(Growth)...Xn(whatever else). At first blush, its not clear ex-ante why this wouldn't be dominiated by the first two explanatory variables. At second blush, it seems obvious that any beliefs further out in the vector will be likely correlated with the general set of beliefs captured in the first two revealed preferences (ie, X1, X2). Not only are thes Xn variables (eg, growth) a series of beliefs* (not actual observed data), those beliefs will be (predictably) co-lineated with other variable that are (exAnte) more likely to have greater predictive power. So, you can't safely say Xn-1 is either independent or by itself stonger than X1 or X2. [#,##] And if that's the case, there really is not much to this. A poll of this type is the wrong form of argument to support your conclusion (as it is not strong enough). There are other levels of logical and orthogonal attack on this general argument (will spare the ink), but in any event these too would be better avoided/adressed in a written essay on the subject. You may also have other levels of logical and orthogonal attack that support your general approach, which would be interesting to read. _______________________________ [#] For the technical statistcal reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity <Consequences of multicollinearity> As mentioned above, one consequence of a high degree of multicollinearity is that, even if the matrix XTX is invertible, a computer algorithm may be unsuccessful in obtaining an approximate inverse, and if it does obtain one it may be numerically inaccurate. But even in the presence of an accurate XTX matrix, the following consequences arise: In the presence of multicollinearity, the estimate of one variable's impact on y while controlling for the others tends to be less precise than if predictors were uncorrelated with one another. The usual interpretation of a regression coefficient is that it provides an estimate of the effect of a one unit change in an independent variable, , holding the other variables constant. If is highly correlated with another independent variable, , in the given data set, then we only have observations for which and have a particular relationship (either positive or negative). We don't have observations for which changes independently of , so we have an imprecise estimate of the effect of independent changes in. [##] With respect to the facts/data, the sub-population reported will predictavly over-represent in near proportion to reported data merely on pre-existing party affiliation (or: revealed preference). And historically, this sub-population will have already historically over-represented for the incumbent. So ex-ante, we expect nested logic and colinearity in Xbar. So then comes the element of differentiation: 1) In general english, if you support a candidate you most likely support his position on Xn. 2) In general english, if you support a party you most likely support the Party Candidate. 3) In general english, if you support a party you most likely support the party position on Xn. 4) In general english, if a party supports a candidate, it most likely support the candidates position on Xn. 5) In general english, if you previously supported a candidate you most likely support his position on Xn. Etc. While these may or may not be true, the issue is one needs a deeper analysis. The problem is one of differentiation and granularity from the data. If the sub-sample was neutral in ex-ante preference, this would help, but we know its not (admittedly). So its all muddled.

by pg 14y ago

chacham15 14y ago

Well, I dont know how you asked them, but from what it seems their decision on who to vote for may be a result of many different issues. For example, the two candidates have very different views on abortion, how to deal with Iran, Libya, etc. Therefore, your comment is only applicable if you had asked: "which candidate do you think is more capable of growing the economy?" An interesting followup to that question may be to what degree do you think that either of the candidates can grow the economy? This would be to ascertain not just who may be better but also how good is the candidate. Do they believe that both candidates are bad and they are simply choosing the lesser of two evils? Lastly, I would ask, "what historical evidence do you rely on to make your decision?" I'd like to ask this to determine how these people are making their decisions. For example, do they have an explanation for why Obama hasn't grown the economy in the last four years or an explanation for why Romney's past performance qualifies him. Or is the explanation more humanistic: "Obama seems like a more trustworthy guy."

ivankirigin 14y ago

But you didn't ask them which they thought would drive the most growth. You asked which they prefer, which is personal.

pg 14y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "personal." I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. But it seemed to me telling that while Romney presents himself as a businessman who can solve our problems with growth, rather than a politician, the real growth experts have more of an affinity for his opponent. If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. That's what makes this poll significant. The leaders of the startup community don't have the natural affinity they'd have for him if they believed his claims. Which in turn is fairly good evidence they're false.
- chacham15 14y ago
  > I think what you meant to say is that the reasons for their preference are unknown. Yes, obviously. > If Romney actually was what he tries to seem, he'd be more popular in the Valley. These two statements are contradictory.
  - pg 14y ago
    I don't understand why you think that.
    - chacham15 14y ago
      The second statement assumes that the reason Romney is not popular with people in the valley is because he does not appear to be what he claims. This contradicts the first statement because it says that we don't know why these people prefer one candidate over another. To be more concrete, people could strongly dislike Romney's stance on abortion. In that case, it would not matter whether Romney appears or does not appear to be what he claims to be, that individual still would not like him.
      - pg 14y ago
        No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he claims. Suppose a restaurant is unpopular, due to bad food, bad service, high cost, whatever. There's no contradiction in expecting it would become more popular if a movie star started to hang out there every night. We're now arguing about basic logic. I've found threads are usually irrecoverable at that point, so if you don't mind, I'm done.
        chacham15 14y ago
        I think that you are missing the heart of the matter. That is that the only piece of data that you have is popularity. Given that, how can you determine how well Romney was what he tries to seem? To put this into the context of your restaurant example, how can you differentiate between a restaurant that is unpopular otherwise but has a movie star and a restaurant with the same level of popularity but no movie star (with the movie star being analogous to Romney being what he tries to seem)? I'm sorry if you do not like these kinds of arguments as I try to involve as much base logic as I can. I think that base logic is to arguments what functions are to algorithms. Furthermore, sticking to logic results in an argument at least on the level of DH4 in your essay "How to Disagree."

001sky 14y ago

I think this would make a better essay topic. Tokenadult is right, that the revealed preferences by themselves are not really news. And yet to read any-more into the data is unsound.[1] To the extent there is a benefit from your insight, it should be flushed out in detail (ie, to convey & understand the micro-analytics). You may (and probably, do) have this all in your head already. But it does not come out either in the posted article or in your comment. Relevant > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity* ___________ [1] A more detailed explantion is as follows: Notwithstanding the substance (ie, the politics), we see an argument of the form: Binary (0,1)=F(X1...Xn) | (challenger, incumbent) ie Vote = Function of (...) So this equation is approximated: (0,1) = f X1(party affiliation)+X2(vote in last election)...XN-1(Growth)...Xn(whatever else). At first blush, its not clear ex-ante why this wouldn't be dominiated by the first two explanatory variables. At second blush, it seems obvious that any beliefs further out in the vector will be likely correlated with the general set of beliefs captured in the first two revealed preferences (ie, X1, X2). Not only are thes Xn variables (eg, growth) a series of beliefs* (not actual observed data), those beliefs will be (predictably) co-lineated with other variable that are (exAnte) more likely to have greater predictive power. So, you can't safely say Xn-1 is either independent or by itself stonger than X1 or X2. [#,##] And if that's the case, there really is not much to this. A poll of this type is the wrong form of argument to support your conclusion (as it is not strong enough). There are other levels of logical and orthogonal attack on this general argument (will spare the ink), but in any event these too would be better avoided/adressed in a written essay on the subject. You may also have other levels of logical and orthogonal attack that support your general approach, which would be interesting to read. _______________________________ [#] For the technical statistcal reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity <Consequences of multicollinearity> As mentioned above, one consequence of a high degree of multicollinearity is that, even if the matrix XTX is invertible, a computer algorithm may be unsuccessful in obtaining an approximate inverse, and if it does obtain one it may be numerically inaccurate. But even in the presence of an accurate XTX matrix, the following consequences arise: In the presence of multicollinearity, the estimate of one variable's impact on y while controlling for the others tends to be less precise than if predictors were uncorrelated with one another. The usual interpretation of a regression coefficient is that it provides an estimate of the effect of a one unit change in an independent variable, , holding the other variables constant. If is highly correlated with another independent variable, , in the given data set, then we only have observations for which and have a particular relationship (either positive or negative). We don't have observations for which changes independently of , so we have an imprecise estimate of the effect of independent changes in. [##] With respect to the facts/data, the sub-population reported will predictavly over-represent in near proportion to reported data merely on pre-existing party affiliation (or: revealed preference). And historically, this sub-population will have already historically over-represented for the incumbent. So ex-ante, we expect nested logic and colinearity in Xbar. So then comes the element of differentiation: 1) In general english, if you support a candidate you most likely support his position on Xn. 2) In general english, if you support a party you most likely support the Party Candidate. 3) In general english, if you support a party you most likely support the party position on Xn. 4) In general english, if a party supports a candidate, it most likely support the candidates position on Xn. 5) In general english, if you previously supported a candidate you most likely support his position on Xn. Etc. While these may or may not be true, the issue is one needs a deeper analysis. The problem is one of differentiation and granularity from the data. If the sub-sample was neutral in ex-ante preference, this would help, but we know its not (admittedly). So its all muddled.