Never fails. Yeah, you got me. I don't understand probabilities.https://twitter.com/sfspaulding/status/1322979579204636677 …
-
Show 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 163 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 123 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
4 replies 22 retweets 167 likesShow this thread -
People keep asking if I think the forecasts are right or wrong. But you cannot ask that question of them. They can't be right or wrong. They weren't wrong in 2016. They won't be wrong now. That's their nature. But focus on prediction *can* affect the outcome. That's the danger.
7 replies 48 retweets 281 likesShow this thread -
People in my inbox with that are favorable or not to Biden. I never said that the models are wrong.
It's that they CANNOT be right OR wrong. The model probabilities you are seeing are NOT making that kind of prediction, and, crucially, the unknown unknowns are not factored in.11 replies 11 retweets 167 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Jessica Hullman
If you're looking for a distraction: Excellent academic article from
@StatModeling@JessicaHullman@CBWlezien,@gelliottmorris &@JessicaHullman on communicating about forecasts—what they are, what they aren't. Again: the forecasts aren't wrong! Or right!https://twitter.com/JessicaHullman/status/1322981825040523271 …zeynep tufekci added,
Jessica Hullman @JessicaHullmanEchoes lots of points made in our article http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/jdm200907b.pdf … I wonder though what people would be doing if professionals didn't do forecasting? Overanalyzing polls? Anxiously querying friends? https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1322954214641979392 …3 replies 14 retweets 116 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Sam Stein
Without making claims about any other state or the outcome. (I don't know!). Polling has clearly missed Florida, at least. Polling in a year like this included extra uncertainty. And it's also plausible that forecasts impacted/energized voters differently.https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1323786156551581697 …
zeynep tufekci added,
3 replies 10 retweets 96 likesShow this thread -
This is how fragile those forecasts were. One state has a polling error, and the forecast now says Trump has one-in-three chance of winning. If errors are broadly correlated—not just Miami Cubans—the odds go up more. Big numbers don't imply big certainty. https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2020-election-results-coverage/ …pic.twitter.com/Hu1nCwRBEi
9 replies 34 retweets 209 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I shared your recent oped with a friend who said "that person clearly has no idea about numbers". He's been quoting the Economist model's 4% trump odds for a week. His last text to me is literally "now odds are like almost 50/50". grrrrrrrrrr
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yeah, the number of people who told me "I did not understand probabilities" because of that piece...
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.