4 ms·

Nate Silver says that the analysis is flawed: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/200

Nate Silver says that the analysis is flawed: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-...

bendotc 17y ago
Just to be clear (for people who don't read the entire post), Silver goes on to say, "In case this isn't clear, I am not suggesting that any and all statistical analysis purporting to show tampering in Iran's election results will turn out to be fruitless. I am merely suggesting that this particular analysis is dubious; it is not a smoking gun. "To properly analyze Iran's election results is probably something best left to Middle East experts, rather than experts on U.S. electoral politics. Juan Cole, for instance, who certainty does know a thing or two about foreign policy, sees plenty of things that smell fishy to him." And links to this excellent post about why it looks like the election actually was stolen: http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.ht...
curtis 17y ago
Just for the record, I submitted this blog post with the title > Dark days: A first hand account of the Iranian presidential election I'm not sure that the new title (how does that work?) is an improvement. My point in submitting the post wasn't to make the case that the election had been rigged. It was simply to present a first hand account from inside Iran about what was happening. Probably the most important thing to take away from the post is not that the Iranian election was rigged, but rather than a lot of Iranians think it was, and they are really, really not happy about it. Edit: minor phrasing
bismitch 17y ago
Sometimes I think there is always a cynical response to any sensational news story, regardless of its validity. I guess it is important to see a controversial position from all sides, but in this case I think there is a clear conclusion (that the voting process was tampered with), that still stands regardless of one faulty statistical analysis of the data. In this case I wonder if it is a way to internally differentiate ourselves from what we would consider blind ignorant sheep of the liberal media.

Nate Silver says that the analysis is flawed: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-...

bendotc 17y ago

Just to be clear (for people who don't read the entire post), Silver goes on to say, "In case this isn't clear, I am not suggesting that any and all statistical analysis purporting to show tampering in Iran's election results will turn out to be fruitless. I am merely suggesting that this particular analysis is dubious; it is not a smoking gun. "To properly analyze Iran's election results is probably something best left to Middle East experts, rather than experts on U.S. electoral politics. Juan Cole, for instance, who certainty does know a thing or two about foreign policy, sees plenty of things that smell fishy to him." And links to this excellent post about why it looks like the election actually was stolen: http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.ht...

curtis 17y ago

Just for the record, I submitted this blog post with the title > Dark days: A first hand account of the Iranian presidential election I'm not sure that the new title (how does that work?) is an improvement. My point in submitting the post wasn't to make the case that the election had been rigged. It was simply to present a first hand account from inside Iran about what was happening. Probably the most important thing to take away from the post is not that the Iranian election was rigged, but rather than a lot of Iranians think it was, and they are really, really not happy about it. Edit: minor phrasing

bismitch 17y ago

Sometimes I think there is always a cynical response to any sensational news story, regardless of its validity. I guess it is important to see a controversial position from all sides, but in this case I think there is a clear conclusion (that the voting process was tampered with), that still stands regardless of one faulty statistical analysis of the data. In this case I wonder if it is a way to internally differentiate ourselves from what we would consider blind ignorant sheep of the liberal media.