New Study shows American public's thoughts on mainstream news after the election. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642315]You call me stupid, but you actually think the election was a game of chance. I think you took the XCOM analogy too literally. Talk about not understanding what the statistics in 538 actually means.[/QUOTE] lovely how there's a big reply and a whole bunch of other posts and you use the first thing to justify victimizing yourself to avoid answering properly

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51642384]lovely how there's a big reply and a whole bunch of other posts and you use the first thing to justify victimizing yourself to avoid answering properly[/QUOTE] It's not really victimizing myself if he is calling me stupid. But either way he proceeds to lay out a essay acting like the election is a game of chance simulation you could rerun with all variables constant and get a new outcome every time. Just because it's a lovely big post doesn't mean I have to address it or it's right, especially because I believe it is fundamentally wrong to perceive the election like this. Either way I am not a victim or see myself as one in this thread. Just obviously having the most dissenting opinion at the moment.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642522]It's not really victimizing myself if he is calling me stupid, but proceeds to lay out a essay acting like the election a game of chance simulation you could rerun with all variables constant and get a new outcome every time. Either way I am not a victim or see myself as one in this thread. Just obviously having the most dissenting opinion at the moment.[/QUOTE] No if the election was ran a thousand times without any variables changed, it would come out the same. It's the change of variables that mean something. Are you upset they didn't give Trump a 100% chance of victory because he ended up being the winner? Just because the events in hindsight have an obvious 100% chance of happening, doesn't mean going into things those probabilities are wrong.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51642539]No if the election was ran a thousand times without any variables changed, it would come out the same. It's the change of variables that mean something. Are you upset they didn't give Trump a 100% chance of victory because he ended up being the winner? Just because the events in hindsight have an obvious 100% chance of happening, doesn't mean going into things those probabilities are wrong.[/QUOTE] See even you think his point is not right then. No, what I'm "upset" about is that I don't hold 538 to the same standard as other people on here and think they will lose popularity.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642567]See even you think his point is not right then. No, what I'm "upset" about is that I don't hold 538 to the same standard as other people on here and think they will lose popularity.[/QUOTE] So? What, because we both feel 538 was correct on this we're forced to be of one mind on all aspects of this? Well hot damn son. If you believe they will lose popularity because people ignorant of the reality of probabilities and statistics will no longer trust them, then fine, but that applies doubly to every other poll/aggregate/statistic that existed at the time and in that case 538 is still a more popular alternative. 538 was leaning towards a Trump election more than anyone else. Trump won. What are people supposed to see and be totally disillusioned by?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642522]It's not really victimizing myself if he is calling me stupid, but proceeds to lay out a essay acting like the election is a game of chance simulation you could rerun with all variables constant and get a new outcome every time. Just because it's a lovely big post doesn't mean I have to address it or it's right, especially because I believe it is fundamentally wrong to perceive the election like this. Either way I am not a victim or see myself as one in this thread. Just obviously having the most dissenting opinion at the moment.[/QUOTE] For the second time, I didn't call you stupid. But you still don't understand statistics, that much is obvious. You don't run with the same constants, but the "constants" you run your predictions on aren't constants but variables with certain probabilities. Rewinding time to November 9th and running the election would not change the result, but from the information available before knowing the outcome, you can only make probabilistic predictions - which is what 538 did. The model allows for information to be flawed or incomplete, which is why it doesn't deal in absolutes like you seem to do. That's why I asked about the 51% vs 49% because it is conceptually the same as the 30% vs 70% split. Edit: Basically your reaction seems to stem from the fact that I said "rerun" the election like it would change anything. It wouldn't, but by your logic any model that didn't predict a 100% chance of Trump winning is "wrong" because that was the actual outcome. It's like flipping a coin once, and concluding that the 50/50 prediction is bogus, because the actual outcome was heads. If you go back in time and flip the coin, same thing would happen. The 50/50 chance isn't based on there actually being a 50/50 chance of heads or tails when you start the flip, it's a prediction based on incomplete information. If you make a machine to flip the coin in a specific way, the probability changes to (basically) 0/100 because you now have (near) complete information. Conceptually it's the same as an election from a statistics point of view.

Like the more i read that post the more I think you just don't get what is implied by the stats to be honest. I get that my xcom analogy pissed you off but I don't even like using it. It's just an example of how seeing a number that is a high % will bias our perception against the reality of the event.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51642590]Like the more i read that post the more I think you just don't get what is implied by the stats to be honest. I get that my xcom analogy pissed you off but I don't even like using it. It's just an example of how seeing a number that is a high % will bias our perception against the reality of the event.[/QUOTE] Well your XCOM analogy is utterly pointless and just insulting to think I truly don't understand how statistics work. Also despite him giving Trump a better chance then most polls, doesn't mean I have to agree he was the most accurate. I respect aggregate methods of polling, but I also know the guy was wildly wrong on key areas that he himself admitted he could be wrong in such as the blue wall. [editline]8th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51642587]For the second time, I didn't call you stupid. But you still don't understand statistics, that much is obvious. You don't run with the same constants, but the "constants" you run your predictions on aren't constants but variables with certain probabilities. Rewinding time to November 9th and running the election would not change the result, but from the information available before knowing the outcome, you can only make probabilistic predictions - which is what 538 did. The model allows for information to be flawed or incomplete, which is why it doesn't deal in absolutes like you seem to do. That's why I asked about the 51% vs 49% because it is conceptually the same as the 30% vs 70% split.[/QUOTE] [quote] Edit: Maybe you're simply arguing this from Average Joe's POV which is very simplistic, but honestly then your point is just kind of stupid. Yeah, Average Joe is a schmuck, who cares. (Most) Average Joe(s) wasn't following 538.[/quote] Well you might as well just call me stupid after that. Your point on statistics is fine for probability assessment, but that really wasn't what you were arguing before

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642616]Well your XCOM analogy is utterly pointless and just insulting to think I truly don't understand how statistics work. Also despite him giving Trump a better chance then most polls, doesn't mean I have to agree he was the most accurate. I respect aggregate methods of polling, but I also know the guy was wildly wrong on key areas that he himself admitted he could be wrong in such as the blue wall. [editline]8th January 2017[/editline] Well you might as well just call me stupid after that. Your point on statistics is fine for probability assessment, but that really wasn't what you were arguing before[/QUOTE] I didn't, though. I make stupid points once in a while, that doesn't mean I'm stupid (or at least I like to think so). Also, I edited my post to clear things up. Read it if you like.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642567]See even you think his point is not right then. No, what I'm "upset" about is that I don't hold 538 to the same standard as other people on here and think they will lose popularity.[/QUOTE] What should 538 do to improve their model for 2020? [editline]8th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;51642616]Well your XCOM analogy is utterly pointless and just insulting to think I truly don't understand how statistics work. Also despite him giving Trump a better chance then most polls, doesn't mean I have to agree he was the most accurate. I respect aggregate methods of polling, but I also know the guy was wildly wrong on key areas that he himself admitted he could be wrong in such as the blue wall. [/QUOTE] He was the aggregate that gave Trump the highest chances of winning. Trump won. He was objectively the most accurate. He didn't admit to being wrong on the blue wall. He denounced the blue wall in 2015, gave blue wall states to Clinton because thats what the polls said, and when she lost those states said "See I told you".

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51642653]What should 538 do to improve their model for 2020?[/QUOTE] redirect to a sli.mg hosted picture where it shows that trump is polling 100% in every state it's probably the only time he'll ever be happy. he's ignored, simplified, or twisted absolutely everything that we've presented. it's more than safe to assume that it's because of bias or something worse.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51642718]redirect to a sli.mg hosted picture where it shows that trump is polling 100% in every state it's probably the only time he'll ever be happy. he's ignored, simplified, or twisted absolutely everything that we've presented. it's more than safe to assume that it's because of bias or something worse.[/QUOTE] Or something worse? Do go on.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51642725]Or something worse? Do go on.[/QUOTE] sure. nate silver, the most reliable pollster probably on earth, said that trump had a low chance of winning. this did not bode will with trump supporters. remember how it absoultely fucking pissed off trump supporters when any poll said that he was losing? remember how they pretended the polls didn't exist when they said that trump was losing, and it existed when trump was winning? most hatred towards the polls was directed towards nate silver since he was the most credible person in the field, and he said that clinton had a higher chance of winning than trump. they attacked his appearance, his angry outbursts towards huffington post when they criticized him for giving clinton too low of a prediction to win, his alleged connections to democrats, they studied him, tried to find weaknesses. they cherry picked all his incorrect predictions, including shit not even from this election, just to make themselves feel good about trump winning. here are the first 6 results of "r/the_donald nate silver" threads I've found. these aren't cherry picked, they just happened to be the first 6. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4gp5i2/lets_dispel_the_notion_that_nate_silver_is_a/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4xab47/the_secrets_behind_fivethirtyeightcom_and_nate/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/568rzr/7_times_nate_silver_was_hilariously_wrong_about/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/56rp18/nate_silver_fucking_sucks/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/596s7b/friendly_reminder_that_nate_silver_is_a_fucking/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4iuqzy/nate_silver_is_a_supercuck/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4tx1rj/the_next_6_months_of_nate_silvers_538com_headlines/[/url] tudd is most likely just leftover hatred from during the election. i can't think of any other reason why he would shit on nate silver and constantly ignore anything that was said in this thread except for the posts that are easier to attack (like mine when I implied something that had the potential to be incredibly flamy)

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637425]Well said there, but you should include the left-wing sites like Vox, Huffington Pos, and Slate among others. It ain't exclusively a right-wing problem.[/QUOTE] You can act like both sides are covered in shit, but the culture of Oh Dearism and oppression via darknews started with the Right.

Tudd you keep insisting that you understand statistics when you obviously don't. An event can be wholly deterministic but due to the measurement errors we can't say for sure what the result will be. Remember the potential satellite collision that was predicted to occur last Saturday? It was given a 44% chance of happening. Do you then say that the scientists were wrong because the collision didn't materialise? No, because the measurements that were fed into the model that predicted that outcome came with error bars, and depending on where the actual values lay, it could or could not have happened. Same goes for predicting election results, which are probably way fuzzier than orbital measurements.