Maybe now is a good time to distinguish between someone who is good at statistics, and someone who is good at statistics for a journalist?
you mean like when Nate Silver told everyone that HC was not a runaway winner?
-
-
while still placing her odds at well over 50-50?
-
That's how statistics work. Just because she lost did not mean that her odds of winning were 0%. Again see popular vote count.
-
I know that's how statistics works, but there is no way to test predictive value of stats with singular events...
-
More data, better understanding of the human brain.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's not really my point, tho. My point is that there are open questions about what %s even refer to w/unrepeatable events
-
Maybe, but I suspicious of any argument that assumes humans are unique little snowflakes and that behavior can't be predicted.
-
As I said, the theory behind probability has been pursued by everyone from Leibniz to Keynes to Heisenberg
-
Not sure the theory of the monad is going to get us there.
-
Um, Leibniz created calculus, dude, and the modern concept ofprobability
-
No shit. I'd say that I've read my Leibniz than you (graduate school and all). Maybe turn down the condescension. It doesn't help
-
Haha, sure. "graduate school and all" not condescending at all. Bye.
-
embarrassing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is an enormous faith in precedence but no feel for when past patterns are bing broken
-
And that was Silver's argument and the reason he didn't go full HuffPo and say that HC had a 106% chance of winning.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.