3 ms·

The author seems to have constructed a strawman. And I think the point she misses most is transparency of data and the feedback loop. If you have these two th

The author seems to have constructed a strawman. And I think the point she misses most is transparency of data and the feedback loop. If you have these two things it puts a light on the problem points she discusses. That is, having a model is not sufficient. You need a model and then a way to measure that a model is a success, and a feedback loop. All of these things are open and can be updated. Things like seatbelts being better for men become more obvious, and the model can be improved to include gender weights, etc... At the end of the day a model is a model. Almost always imperfect. But if the model is open, as is the metric of success, and how the feedback loop works, I think you'll tend toward improvement and better discussions.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
I have no idea why you are being downmodded. Your point is absolutely correct. You should always create an explicit, transparent model and utility function. Discussion will always be more clear. "Person I disagree with undervalues math relative to reading, just look at his weights" will get us far closer to the truth than vague subjective opinions and mood affiliation.
gvb 14y ago
The title is wrong, data is objective but the models are not and which data is used is not (and she argues both those points). She links to Gary Rubinstein's blog[1] that is mind boggling in its analysis of the results of an actual model of teacher's effectiveness and the resulting data. 1) The model that NYC used to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness is not available. It appears that the input data is not available either, only the output data of the model. That isn't transparency. 2) The output of the model is random. Having a feedback loop on random output data isn't going to improve the model. Maybe Bill Gates' model and data will be better and will be transparent. I'm skeptical. [1] http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-released-nyc-value-added-data-part-1/ http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-re...
johnminter 14y ago
Your comment brings to mind the quote by George Box, "All models are wrong, but some models are useful." I am currently enrolled in Jeff Leek's Data Analysis class on Coursera. Jeff stresses that a good analyst always challenges their results, gaining credibility with the reader. I would have liked to have seen more of this in Bill Gate's essay in the NYT (that Cathy used in her blog).
cbs 14y ago
The author seems to have constructed a strawman. The only other time I've seen this particular is blog when it was posted[1] on HN and the author was fighting a strawman Nate Silver. Its unfortunate because the blogger obviously has some math smarts, but misinterprets the written word. [1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4949103 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4949103
Alex3917 14y ago
"The author seems to have constructed a strawman. And I think the point she misses most is transparency of data and the feedback loop." What feedback loop? You seem to have invented a feedback loop that doesn't exist.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I have no idea why you are being downmodded. Your point is absolutely correct. You should always create an explicit, transparent model and utility function. Discussion will always be more clear. "Person I disagree with undervalues math relative to reading, just look at his weights" will get us far closer to the truth than vague subjective opinions and mood affiliation.

gvb 14y ago

The title is wrong, data is objective but the models are not and which data is used is not (and she argues both those points). She links to Gary Rubinstein's blog[1] that is mind boggling in its analysis of the results of an actual model of teacher's effectiveness and the resulting data. 1) The model that NYC used to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness is not available. It appears that the input data is not available either, only the output data of the model. That isn't transparency. 2) The output of the model is random. Having a feedback loop on random output data isn't going to improve the model. Maybe Bill Gates' model and data will be better and will be transparent. I'm skeptical. [1] http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-released-nyc-value-added-data-part-1/ http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-re...

johnminter 14y ago

Your comment brings to mind the quote by George Box, "All models are wrong, but some models are useful." I am currently enrolled in Jeff Leek's Data Analysis class on Coursera. Jeff stresses that a good analyst always challenges their results, gaining credibility with the reader. I would have liked to have seen more of this in Bill Gate's essay in the NYT (that Cathy used in her blog).

cbs 14y ago

The author seems to have constructed a strawman. The only other time I've seen this particular is blog when it was posted[1] on HN and the author was fighting a strawman Nate Silver. Its unfortunate because the blogger obviously has some math smarts, but misinterprets the written word. [1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4949103 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4949103

Alex3917 14y ago

"The author seems to have constructed a strawman. And I think the point she misses most is transparency of data and the feedback loop." What feedback loop? You seem to have invented a feedback loop that doesn't exist.