Check out this thread for a sophisticated discussion of what it means to "predict" essentially an unrepeatable event, one that is rare to boot—once every four years every one of which happens under greatly different conditions. Now amidst a pandemic. https://twitter.com/SimonDeDeo/status/1322770550352216064 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Before anyone jumps on this, this is not a polemic against FiveThirtyEight's or anyone else's modeling choices. As I say in the piece, I was hopeful early on modeling would cut down on misleading horse-race coverage. I even wrote a piece on that! But that's not what's happened.
4 replies 12 retweets 184 likesShow this thread -
For weather models we have detailed, fine-grained grasp of the underlying dynamics, a mountain of data, and chances to test our predictions every day. Presidential elections? Numbers fly around every four years, then lots of debate and no conclusion. Because it *cannot* conclude.pic.twitter.com/jcgtT60WTS
5 replies 26 retweets 206 likesShow this thread -
Electoral forecast presentation has gotten better since 2016 but the public understanding is still not there. That probability number is not communicating this fact: as things stand, they do not, and cannot, rule out either party winning. That's the key thing people need to know.
4 replies 35 retweets 210 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted sfspaulding
Never fails. Yeah, you got me. I don't understand probabilities.https://twitter.com/sfspaulding/status/1322979579204636677 …
zeynep tufekci added,
6 replies 6 retweets 178 likesShow this thread -
As addendum, for
@insight, I wrote about why I changed my mind on this, and why I was wrong in 2012 when I defended modeling when Nate Silver was being trashed by pundits. The pundits were wrong for sure. But things did not turn out the way I had hoped.https://zeynep.substack.com/p/stop-refreshing-that-forecast …4 replies 29 retweets 165 likesShow this thread -
Example from today: Stories about polls and predictions do great among the "most read" pages. I get it. A lot is at stake. But there is just no way for forecasts to deliver what we seek, and as 2016 showed, it can even do harm if we rely on them and assume "likely" means certain.pic.twitter.com/mfhgyLATPH
4 replies 12 retweets 125 likesShow this thread -
The number of comments like this—often from people who understand models and probability—really make my case. If we shouldn't be surprised with *either* outcome, that just reinforces my point. And here's why people "treat probabilities as forecasts"! https://twitter.com/liammannix/status/1323025081363099648 …pic.twitter.com/VcqWTd7dWR
5 replies 22 retweets 167 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @liammannix
Thank you! I’m just pointing out that at some level, we do know that they don’t rule out either outcome, but that’s just not how they’re processed in our public sphere.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
I always think if something like this was presented it would improve understanding. Even here, the prediction interval is quite tight, if you expanded to the 95% confidence bound I imagine the two estimates would mostly overlappic.twitter.com/IpAjy9qkr1
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @liammannix
Yep. That plus the unknown unknowns: the interval there is uncertainty that comes from things within the scope of the model. There's a good deal that isn't. Once you put that all in, it's almost certainly all in the "plausible" zone. Not even getting to voter suppression.
0 replies 0 retweets 8 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.