I don’t know about this... Forecasts in general can definitely be wrong. Assigning a 99% chance to Clinton winning, for example, was a modeling error. If you don’t have the outcome in your prediction interval, from a modeling standpoint you very likely did something wrong.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1323649467015376896 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @gelliottmorris
How is it wrong? Trump had one percent chance, that model claimed, and that happened. I don't think it was a great model, but I don't see how it's wrong. One percent events happen, obviously, and we worry about them and change our whole lives over it: see COVID CFR.
11 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @gelliottmorris
As a trader, I can relate to this discussion. I have to make decisions based on probabilities, & sometimes the most probabilistic outcome does not happen. This does not mean I made a bad or wrong decision. We make a decision based on the information we have & accept the result.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes. The problem is when the event is rare, repeats under rapidly changing terrain *and* belief in forecast affects/changes outcome (and all the factors outside the model!). Presidential elections are tough. Repeat/frequent events give more options for evaluating model quality.
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.