A month ago, people were getting so mad about articles like these: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/ … http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/ …http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-clintons-position-is-worse-than-obamas/ …
-
-
People don't/can't get what "errors are correlated" or "small shifts are huge" corresponds to in the huge topline percentage.
-
The uncertainty needs to be incorporated into the thing everyone is looking at; not just in long articles or in footnotes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nate you buried the lede bigly. Most of us had no idea T could actually win. Would have worked our ass off.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can't blame people's innumeracy on Silver; graphs showed probabilistic forecast. Just like weather. 30% bigger
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
chance than people realize, yet Silver hit that point over and over again.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
: I dunno. The articles were very widely read—we have the data on that—but actively resisted because they didn't fit people's priors.
-
it's almost as if confirmation bias is the problem and seeking out stories that confirm your world view is a symptom!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
the topline and graphs DID effectively, I think, show Trump's *probabilistic odds* of winning
Thanks. 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.