3 ms·
It's hard to create a dramatic image of a close race when someone crunches numbers, says "nah," and convinces a lot of people. Attempts to discredit him were we
by mkr-hn 14y ago
It's hard to create a dramatic image of a close race when someone crunches numbers, says "nah," and convinces a lot of people. Attempts to discredit him were were bound to happen as the election got closer, along with inevitable defenses.
I think you're so eager to unearth a PR conspiracy that you ignore the more plausible explanation: lazy media.
edit: Check 001sky's submission history.
- 001sky 14y agoNo, this is not an exercise in statistics (which I understand, trust me). The NY times public editor article clearly articulates he's promoting his book. Articles don't get written by people who wake up and all write the same headline, even lazy journalists do better than that, unless they are being fed information from PRs.
- mkr-hn 14y agoSo what? HN is full of obvious PR. PG even has an essay on it (http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html). That doesn't discredit him. You say you know statistics. Take a crack at his methodology if you think it's flawed: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/ I'm sure it would make a great blog post.
- 001sky 14y agoI don't need to argue with him. Its the amusing narrative that using statistics somehow original or new that's interesting. I've even said here on HN some of the data visualizations they do are great. But the storylines or headlines are clearly cynical, PR driven linkbait. Just look at them. They all say the same thing, just slightly disquised like an undergrad trying to hide his plagiarism. Its just self-awareness that is missing. That's why i posted links: so people can see the patterns.
- mkr-hn 14y agoIt seems like you're trying to discredit Nate Silver by how bad his PR people are. I assume everything is PR so I can focus on merits. Are you interested in merits or taking shots at something you've (apparently) given no thought to? It's not like 2012 is the first time he's used this methodology. I've been following 538 since it launched in 2008 and generally find it to be insightful and informative. And more right than wrong. And when he's wrong, he usually has a good post to talk about how he got it wrong, and how the miss will factor into future projections.
- 001sky 14y agoWhatever. Ad hominem attacks are actually useful when people try to dress up their politics as "science" or "objectivity". Try reading Nietzche. Nothing is new here. The purpose of his analytics are propoganda, plain and simple. The notion that an election will be an "independent test" of a pollster's predictions the goal they are all <trying to be avoid>. That is why campaigns employ them, to test their messages, react, change message (as appropriate) and influence the public mood, etc.
- mkr-hn 14y agoWhat you're saying is you don't care. You can just say that. "I don't care to look further to see if this person's work has merit." That's ok. But don't try to dress it up as some kind of cynical enlightenment.
- 001sky 14y agoNo, i don't care to argue with you.
- mkr-hn 14y agoThis string of posts says otherwise. I think it annoys you that I won't go along with your desired narrative. Your submission history combined with the rapid rise in karma makes me think you're the one doing thinly-veiled PR. edit: One of your first submissions is from Andrew Breitbart's site. And you're calling others partisan. Who are you working for?