home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Dude: Nate Silver

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Dude: Nate Silver

Person who renders all pundits, talking heads, and self-proclaimed experts useless
32
71%
NEEEEEEEEEEERDD!!!!
13
29%
 
Total votes : 45

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby prowler on Tue May 10, 2016 8:41 am

Tom wrote:with the exception of the MI dem primary, their state by state forecasts have been dead on.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... emocratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... emocratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... emocratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... emocratic/ (switched 2 days before)

lol as I'm writing this post, they just changed the Utah page
Image
you'll have to trust me, before it had Bernie jumping to 51% in the last 2 days before the primary. who knows how many others they retroactively changed, obviously a CONSPIRACY.
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Tom on Tue May 10, 2016 11:58 am



Yeah, Michigan was fucked up, and Indiana wasn't great, but Utah and Oklahoma were pretty good. Each of those were about 50/50 odds that Sanders would win and he did. In Indiana's case, he said Sanders had a 1 in 10 shot of winning. Not great odds, but not the worst either. Michigan was the only one that I'd consider implausible based on the odds he gave it.
User avatar
Tom
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7806
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: God's Hand

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby prowler on Wed May 11, 2016 6:40 am

Tom wrote:


Yeah, Michigan was fucked up, and Indiana wasn't great, but Utah and Oklahoma were pretty good. Each of those were about 50/50 odds that Sanders would win and he did. In Indiana's case, he said Sanders had a 1 in 10 shot of winning. Not great odds, but not the worst either. Michigan was the only one that I'd consider implausible based on the odds he gave it.

The point with Ok and Ut is that all the way up to 2 days before the election they weren't giving 50/50 odds, it was more like 70/30 for Hillary.
Not to mention a bunch of other cases where their "prediction" was around 51/49 -- what's the point in even publishing that? Just say your model doesn't have any predictive claims in this case.

And what's with them constantly revising these "prediction" pages? For past elections their pages shouldn't be "updated daily" :roll:
User avatar
prowler
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:54 am
Location: Bucharest

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Gramsci on Wed May 11, 2016 10:58 am

phpBB [media]
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10675
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Auntie Ovipositor on Wed May 11, 2016 1:51 pm

Gramsci wrote:
phpBB [media]

This is the dumbest.

I'm constantly amazed how people can see an articulate discussion of probabilities and statistical likelihoods and equate it with punditry. Or to say that because things didn't go the way the polls forecast in a given instance it's obviously just made up bullshit.

I love my mother, but she believes in acupuncture and chiropractic and Chinese medicine and all forms of magic. She does this exact same thing whenever a medical diagnosis is wrong - "SEE! SEE! THEY THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING BUT IT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS CARPAL TUNNEL BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A PINCHED NERVE IN MY NECK! THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING I'M GOING TO LET MY AROMATHERAPIST HEAL THIS FOR ME BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!"
The Loyalists are a rock band from Oakland, California
User avatar
Auntie Ovipositor
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: Oakland, baby

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby the finger genius on Wed May 11, 2016 3:56 pm

TL:DW

I think the criticism is more that there were polls indicating trump could win the nomination and silver didn't really buy many of those polls.
cjh wrote:Half Man, Half Brioche?


I play drums in Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death

I play everything in Grass Jaw
User avatar
the finger genius
the white ho
the white ho
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Auntie Ovipositor on Wed May 11, 2016 4:30 pm

the finger genius wrote:TL:DW

I think the criticism is more that there were polls indicating trump could win the nomination and silver didn't really buy many of those polls.


Links to those polls? Because they do show their work at 538, and show why they weight them the way that they do. Which does not mean they cannot be wrong in their forecasts or in their weighting of polls (far from it), but does show the statistical analysis that they are using to structure those forecasts.

There's a difference between being wrong and having your thumb on the scale.
The Loyalists are a rock band from Oakland, California
User avatar
Auntie Ovipositor
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2946
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: Oakland, baby

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Wood Goblin on Wed May 11, 2016 5:12 pm

Dave, I really recommend that you take stats class in which you do hands-on modeling. What Silver does has limitations and, yes, some biases, but it's nothing like astrology. And yes, you can remove a lot of the political bias when you build the poll aggregation model.
User avatar
Wood Goblin
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6065
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: South Loop, Chicago

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Wood Goblin on Wed May 11, 2016 5:21 pm

I guess my question, then, is how are people like Silver and Wang not an improvement over the punditry of the past? How are they not a HUGE improvement?
User avatar
Wood Goblin
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6065
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: South Loop, Chicago

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Johnny C on Thu May 12, 2016 2:51 am

Data journalism in general is fine and even 538's wonky bullshit caveat-coated model is ultimately fine, in the end, because it offers potential ways of parsing unwieldy data points that are a natural byproduct of material/political/historical circumstances but Nate Silver is a fucking dorkus who ought to be run out on a rail.

Wood Goblin wrote:Dave, I really recommend that you take stats class in which you do hands-on modeling. What Silver does has limitations and, yes, some biases, but it's nothing like astrology. And yes, you can remove a lot of the political bias when you build the poll aggregation model.


Silver has sophisticated methodology that turns out to be less effective, overall, than the gut biases of people operating on a basis of horrendously crude racial "science" and, literally, "sexual pathology." This is why Diggler is so funny; purestrain data journalism and/or explainer types aren't actually much of an improvement on your average bumbling political columnist because they just put all of their gut urge and mystical nonsense into an entirely different basket with the legitimising sheen of numbers. No need to wait ten years to settle accounts on Diggler; he's correctly called 89 per cent of primaries, including ones Silver hasn't called, and "Nate Silver (loser)" has called 59. There aren't even enough primaries left for Silver to bridge that gap. It's over. In terms of the accuracy of the model on a granular level, he's lost.

Guys like Silver also get extremely thin-skinned about the authoritative nature of their methodology; as soon as you point out that the FiveThirtyEight uses very little in the way of shoe-leather reportage in its work (which is also imperfect, but could at least give an infinitely better impression than the current, Silver-pioneered adjusted model that includes endorsements no ordinary alive person has given a single shit about in the history of modern electoral politics and is thus wrong any time voters are rejecting the type of people who professionally endorse political candidates) he gets so apoplectic that he has to pause to take a deep breath, on mic.

I hate these guys. The Canadian equivalent is Eric Grenier, this peeled potato-looking motherfucker who never adequately explains his model, refuses to use his position as Canada's essentially single high-profile data pundit to call for better or more sophisticated polling methodology, is forever writing columns about (and having columns written about) how his model was wrong, gets paid for this shit, and also looks like a white Grimace in a cheap suit. I want to leave him tied up in the Bay of Fundy during low tide. With him gone, the CBC might be able to afford hiring two better journalists instead.

That's the problem with them, at the end of the day. If their predictive model isn't actually much of an improvement in its weird online media vacuum over punditry of the past and it is also hoovering up money that its parent companies could be sinking into overall better reportage, what's the utility of them, anyway?
Rick Reuben wrote:None of us is the person we were supposed to be.

these estates | architects & builders | delta throats | plywood | oiseaux
User avatar
Johnny C
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Johnny C on Thu May 12, 2016 2:53 am

"Well, see, my ocean god is fundamentally superior to YOUR ocean god, because my ocean god religion factors in common maritime occurrences over an eight-year spread and assigns probabilities to ship capsizing, typhoons, etcetera. Really sophisticated stuff."
Rick Reuben wrote:None of us is the person we were supposed to be.

these estates | architects & builders | delta throats | plywood | oiseaux
User avatar
Johnny C
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby the finger genius on Thu May 12, 2016 6:30 am

Auntie Ovipositor wrote:
the finger genius wrote:TL:DW

I think the criticism is more that there were polls indicating trump could win the nomination and silver didn't really buy many of those polls.


Links to those polls? Because they do show their work at 538, and show why they weight them the way that they do. Which does not mean they cannot be wrong in their forecasts or in their weighting of polls (far from it), but does show the statistical analysis that they are using to structure those forecasts.

There's a difference between being wrong and having your thumb on the scale.


No (to links.) I have been listening to the 538 election podcast from the beginning, and they did reference polls suggesting Trump had the best path to the nomination, and especially early on they seemed to not really believe those polls. I am not going to comment on whether they had good scientific reason to do so (I will say that I was also a bit incredulous about his chance until it happened.)
cjh wrote:Half Man, Half Brioche?


I play drums in Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death

I play everything in Grass Jaw
User avatar
the finger genius
the white ho
the white ho
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby steve on Thu May 12, 2016 11:27 am

Johnny C wrote:Silver has sophisticated methodology that turns out to be less effective, overall , than the gut biases of people operating on a basis of horrendously crude racial "science" and, literally, "sexual pathology." This is why Diggler is so funny; purestrain data journalism and/or explainer types aren't actually much of an improvement on your average bumbling political columnist because they just put all of their gut urge and mystical nonsense into an entirely different basket with the legitimising sheen of numbers.

The bold part is demonstrably, categorically false.

Yes the Diggler thing is funny, but it's about the same as the autistic kid who drew a perfect NCAA bracket. The whole reason Silver (and the quant crowd in all fields from baseball to sports betting) have any sway is that they have been, on aggregate, much more successful in prediction than seat-of-the-pants "gut" pundits.

Jimmy the Greek died broke, Haralabos Vulgaris is approaching billionaire. Nate Silver had a "bad" year, and that lowers his batting average down to something merely astronomical. It's true for essentially everything; counting things is the best way to determine how many of them there are.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9351
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Johnny C on Thu May 12, 2016 1:25 pm

I had a longer post written up but Dave covered most of the big points. The only thing I'd want to add is that the overall utility of Silver and his team as pundits is as much the point as anything. If their hit rate is literally half that of a fictional guy whose in-article screenshots always have some kind of absurd reference to Jim Webb's physical fitness, it's kind of irrelevant whether that's a better hit rate, overall, than a guy like Ross Douthat, who commands a similar salary and was last seen tied to a train caboose receding into the distance while shouting "TRUMP HAD A CEILING I TOLD YOU HE HAD A CEILING". Nate Silver's salary for using numbers to have a lower failure rate than people who are paid to be even more publicly clueless is likely in the $200k/year range, if not far higher. Meanwhile, the FiveThirtyEight's parent company shuttered Grantland. Why should pundits have any sway at all, in an environment like this?
Last edited by Johnny C on Thu May 12, 2016 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Reuben wrote:None of us is the person we were supposed to be.

these estates | architects & builders | delta throats | plywood | oiseaux
User avatar
Johnny C
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby steve on Thu May 12, 2016 1:26 pm

big_dave wrote:Nate Silver becomes wrong when he allows himself to be persuaded that what he does is apolitical or free from subjectivity and then passes that delusion on to his audience.

He doesn't do that. He looks for data, tries to sort it and weigh it. The inference that it is or pretends to be "apolitical" is your own.

Of course there's a subjective vector or two, he says as much. But he can say, "this seems high to me," and present the quant material without negating that the data suggest a result.
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9351
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby matthew on Sat May 14, 2016 1:39 am

.
Last edited by matthew on Sat May 14, 2016 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
...diesque nostros in tua pace disponas...
User avatar
matthew
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:38 pm
Location: Gens non sancta.

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby matthew on Sat May 14, 2016 1:41 am

big_dave wrote:
steve wrote:
big_dave wrote:Nate Silver becomes wrong when he allows himself to be persuaded that what he does is apolitical or free from subjectivity and then passes that delusion on to his audience.

He doesn't do that. He looks for data, tries to sort it and weigh it. The inference that it is or pretends to be "apolitical" is your own.


He claims he doesn't care about politics. I say that what he does is politics.


Look, you dorks (mostly big_dave, but also steve)....he has a staff and a crew which posts articles, commentary and editorial-sorts of things on 538 which are clearly political. Yes, I check in fairly regularly...it's mostly boring calculus with a rather particular agenda when it comes to the "politics" part of his site.

Nate Silver clearly has some political notions. Sheesh. Why else would he have a link on his site's homepage entitled "Politics"?
...diesque nostros in tua pace disponas...
User avatar
matthew
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:38 pm
Location: Gens non sancta.

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Gramsci on Mon May 16, 2016 4:43 am

Nate Silver has a Donald Trump problem: Where does data journalism go now?
The press either abetted Trump's rise or got it all wrong. But the stakes seem higher for one-time oracles at 538


http://www.salon.com/2016/05/15/nate_si ... socialflow
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10675
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby J Temperance on Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:55 pm

It's hilarious how badly Silver misjudged the Trump phenomenon. Literally every fucking step of the way, Nate's been wrong. By a lot.
J Temperance
newbie
newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:27 pm

Re: Dude: Nate Silver

Postby Edward on Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:07 am

J Temperance wrote:It's hilarious how badly Silver misjudged the Trump phenomenon. Literally every fucking step of the way, Nate's been wrong. By a lot.

What paper/site/etc. didn't misjudge the Trump phenomenon?
Edward
denny dias
denny dias
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:15 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests