LogFAQs > #934387991

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I sort of see corriks point here. Nate Silvers stuff isnt quite like a fire emblem chance to hit because FEs attacks are repeatable so you can see over time that there actually was that 1% chance or whatever, but the election just happens once so its impossible to prove that running the election 100 times would result in 99 trump losses or whatever the actual prediction was

so silvers predictions look like making a bet you cant technically lose no matter the outcome even if the outcome is the one he said was incredibly unlikely. If the things he says are less likely to happen consistently end up happening it casts some doubt on the process by which hes making these predictions (I have no idea how often this is the case for him though)

Pretty much. Is it, hey you are just wrong and this is how it happened? Or would this really have happened 1 time in a 100?

And, I assume he means 1 time in a 100 with this data, but again, the variables are all relatively different from 4 years to 4 years in an election.

So basically, your highest probable outcomes are what you are saying your result is to be. If it is some outlier, then it isn't well it would have happened the 99 other times. It just didn't happen. There is no way to prove the other end, yet it is handwaved as a once in a hundred happening.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)