5 ms·

The real question is: given any set of data, after the fact, what is the chance that a numerology detective can find some metric that will indicate suspicious a

The real question is: given any set of data, after the fact, what is the chance that a numerology detective can find some metric that will indicate suspicious activity? (Pretty much 100%) I'm calling bullshit.

earl 17y ago
It's not unreasonable to expect that the last two digits of the voting counts should be distributed uniformly. Given that we also know that the wiring in human brains keeps us from properly sampling a uniform distribution by hand, the article employed a simple strategy of looking at the last two digits, assuming they were drawn from a uniform distribution, and asking if that were so, what is the probability that this would be our draw? You gave no reason to be skeptical, and simply illustrated your lack of familiarity with basic tools of probability. Funny that you would below speak of a "stunning example [...] of mathematical ignorance." If you wanted to substantively contribute to the discussion, perhaps you should try explaining why this was an invalid test instead of just labeling the authors as "numerology detectives?"
- bilbo0s 17y ago
  To be fair. It should be noted that US and UK elections have far larger variances than the elections in Iran. I suspect it is because incumbent politicians are allowed to engage in 're-districting'. I would need more data to make a definitive statement on the 'why'. In my view though, when Republicans carve out new districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, and when Democrats carve out new districts in Chicago, it is a form of election tampering. A very effective form of election tampering. Only the evidence of having tampered with the elections via re-districting shows up via Benford's law. Again, that part is just a theory. The explanation could be as simple as tamperers stuffing ballot boxes in the US as well.
- kvh 17y ago
  I think his point is that if a hundred such political scientists used a hundred different methods of evaluating election results, one of them would be guaranteed to find evidence of fraud. the other 99 would not report there results, not having found anything exciting. im not convinced there ARE that many tests you could perform, but the general point is interesting...
itistoday 17y ago
Calling bullshit on your own post might be a smarter idea. Just because it's not intuitive to you doesn't mean it's not mathematically sound. Your post amounts to "I don't understand statistics or what the hell this article is talking about, therefore I'm going to be suspicious of it."
- scscsc 17y ago
  Negative. It is intuitive (and wrong). It is not mathematically sound. He does understand statistics. The point he's making is that the author of the article chose the metrics after the act. There are tons of such metrics to use; if you are not honest, you can search for the ones that prove your point.
- WilliamLP 17y ago
  It's not that difficult an idea, even if the trend of comment voting here indicates a disturbing ignorance of how statistics can be manipulated. What would be mathematically sound would be to agree on a standard set of tests, perhaps including Benford's law, digit distribution, two digit combinations shown to be popular when humans pick numbers at random. And to do so _BEFORE THE DATA HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE_. How would I trick people into believing a false conclusion? One way would be to find 30 or so measures of what could suggest suspicious patterns. Then I'd test the data with them, and perhaps there would be 2 which have a 5% chance of occurring purely by chance. Then I say "Aha! Look at this! The chance of these two things happening are .05 * 0.05 or practically impossible!" Apparently I could fool some pretty smart people this way, since they obviously aren't immune to basic statistical fallacy. As another poster said, none of this suggests that the data weren't manipulated, but just that the stats in the article, as given, are purely bullshit.
  - kvh 17y ago
    For instance, the same authors, in a previous paper analyzing nigerian election results, state the following "lab experiments indicate that individuals tend to favor small numbers, even when subjects have incentives to properly randomize. Second, individuals underestimate the likelihood of digit repetition in sequences of random integers, so we should observe relatively fewer instances of repeated numbers in manipulated vote tallies." there is no mention of either of these statistics in the Iran analysis.

earl 17y ago

It's not unreasonable to expect that the last two digits of the voting counts should be distributed uniformly. Given that we also know that the wiring in human brains keeps us from properly sampling a uniform distribution by hand, the article employed a simple strategy of looking at the last two digits, assuming they were drawn from a uniform distribution, and asking if that were so, what is the probability that this would be our draw? You gave no reason to be skeptical, and simply illustrated your lack of familiarity with basic tools of probability. Funny that you would below speak of a "stunning example [...] of mathematical ignorance." If you wanted to substantively contribute to the discussion, perhaps you should try explaining why this was an invalid test instead of just labeling the authors as "numerology detectives?"

bilbo0s 17y ago
To be fair. It should be noted that US and UK elections have far larger variances than the elections in Iran. I suspect it is because incumbent politicians are allowed to engage in 're-districting'. I would need more data to make a definitive statement on the 'why'. In my view though, when Republicans carve out new districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, and when Democrats carve out new districts in Chicago, it is a form of election tampering. A very effective form of election tampering. Only the evidence of having tampered with the elections via re-districting shows up via Benford's law. Again, that part is just a theory. The explanation could be as simple as tamperers stuffing ballot boxes in the US as well.
kvh 17y ago
I think his point is that if a hundred such political scientists used a hundred different methods of evaluating election results, one of them would be guaranteed to find evidence of fraud. the other 99 would not report there results, not having found anything exciting. im not convinced there ARE that many tests you could perform, but the general point is interesting...

itistoday 17y ago

Calling bullshit on your own post might be a smarter idea. Just because it's not intuitive to you doesn't mean it's not mathematically sound. Your post amounts to "I don't understand statistics or what the hell this article is talking about, therefore I'm going to be suspicious of it."

scscsc 17y ago
Negative. It is intuitive (and wrong). It is not mathematically sound. He does understand statistics. The point he's making is that the author of the article chose the metrics after the act. There are tons of such metrics to use; if you are not honest, you can search for the ones that prove your point.
WilliamLP 17y ago
It's not that difficult an idea, even if the trend of comment voting here indicates a disturbing ignorance of how statistics can be manipulated. What would be mathematically sound would be to agree on a standard set of tests, perhaps including Benford's law, digit distribution, two digit combinations shown to be popular when humans pick numbers at random. And to do so _BEFORE THE DATA HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE_. How would I trick people into believing a false conclusion? One way would be to find 30 or so measures of what could suggest suspicious patterns. Then I'd test the data with them, and perhaps there would be 2 which have a 5% chance of occurring purely by chance. Then I say "Aha! Look at this! The chance of these two things happening are .05 * 0.05 or practically impossible!" Apparently I could fool some pretty smart people this way, since they obviously aren't immune to basic statistical fallacy. As another poster said, none of this suggests that the data weren't manipulated, but just that the stats in the article, as given, are purely bullshit.
- kvh 17y ago
  For instance, the same authors, in a previous paper analyzing nigerian election results, state the following "lab experiments indicate that individuals tend to favor small numbers, even when subjects have incentives to properly randomize. Second, individuals underestimate the likelihood of digit repetition in sequences of random integers, so we should observe relatively fewer instances of repeated numbers in manipulated vote tallies." there is no mention of either of these statistics in the Iran analysis.