ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , donald trump , joe biden

Reply
Old 21st September 2020, 03:23 AM   #481
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,101
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
They don't switch sides, but they do stay home.
Yeah, I suppose there are those who think their vote is pointless and therefore don't cast it.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 04:37 AM   #482
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 13,757
Catalonia Now Interfering in US Elections!!

You read it right, someone from Catalonia will be voting in a US presidential election for the very first time since 1976. Damn foreigners and other suspicious types think 2020 concerns -- get this -- the entire planet.
__________________
"Absolute truth" is opinion in disguise and often carrying a weapon.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 05:05 AM   #483
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,190
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
You read it right, someone from Catalonia will be voting in a US presidential election for the very first time since 1976. Damn foreigners and other suspicious types think 2020 concerns -- get this -- the entire planet.
wait -since when is the US part of the planet?
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 06:08 AM   #484
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
538 has also started crunching number on specific "How it will play out" scenarios, which are always interesting to think about.

Trump wins in a landslide (Wins the popular vote by double digits) -- Less than 1%
Biden wins in a landslide -- 30%

Biden wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- 10%
Trump wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- Less than 1%

No one wins, it goes to the House (Neither candidate gets 270 votes, House picks the President) -- Less than 1%

The Presidency will be determined on a recount -- 5%

We get the exact same EC Map in 2020 that we did in 2016 -- Less than 1%

A 269 to 269 EC Vote Tie -- 1%

Biden wins at least one state Trump won in 2016 -- 92%
Trump wins at least on state that Hillary won in 2016 -- 37%
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 06:14 AM   #485
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,189
Quote:
According to Wiki, Donald Trump is the first president since James K. Polk 11th President, 1846) to not have a presidential pet while in office.

Animal lovers might take note of that fact.
That might only work if you somehow make the lack of a pet sound "unamerican".

"Saint Ronald Reagan had a pet. Why doesn't Donald?"


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 07:28 AM   #486
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,003
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
538 has also started crunching number on specific "How it will play out" scenarios, which are always interesting to think about.

Trump wins in a landslide (Wins the popular vote by double digits) -- Less than 1%
Biden wins in a landslide -- 30%

Biden wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- 10%
Trump wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- Less than 1%

No one wins, it goes to the House (Neither candidate gets 270 votes, House picks the President) -- Less than 1%

The Presidency will be determined on a recount -- 5%

We get the exact same EC Map in 2020 that we did in 2016 -- Less than 1%

A 269 to 269 EC Vote Tie -- 1%

Biden wins at least one state Trump won in 2016 -- 92%
Trump wins at least on state that Hillary won in 2016 -- 37%
There are a lot of IFs behind those numbers. It's not quite the Bible Code, but I have a very hard time believing that they aren't wildly oversell their ability to make accurate predictions by even doing these calculations.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 07:30 AM   #487
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
538 has also started crunching number on specific "How it will play out" scenarios, which are always interesting to think about.

Trump wins in a landslide (Wins the popular vote by double digits) -- Less than 1%
Biden wins in a landslide -- 30%

Biden wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- 10%
Trump wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- Less than 1%

No one wins, it goes to the House (Neither candidate gets 270 votes, House picks the President) -- Less than 1%

The Presidency will be determined on a recount -- 5%

We get the exact same EC Map in 2020 that we did in 2016 -- Less than 1%

A 269 to 269 EC Vote Tie -- 1%

Biden wins at least one state Trump won in 2016 -- 92%
Trump wins at least on state that Hillary won in 2016 -- 37%
In other words, "We have no idea what is going to happen."
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 07:49 AM   #488
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,327
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
In other words, "We have no idea what is going to happen."
I don't think they ever claim to know what is going to happen.

They claim to be able to take polling data, apply their model to normalise it and then provide an approximate probability (with error bars) for various outcomes.

Those probabilities will then change as few information becomes available (for example one candidate moving significantly in the polls), or if they make changes to their model.

IMO it's a reasonable approach.

At the moment, it appears that the most likely outcome is that Biden will win both the Electoral College and the popular vote. If President Trumps poll numbers were to improve significantly, or if he was successful in making postal voting illegal, then I'd expect that to change.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 07:51 AM   #489
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
I don't get why 538 goes "What we are doing is laying out probabilities" and people go "Oh what so you're saying you are psychic?"
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 07:57 AM   #490
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
538 has also started crunching number on specific "How it will play out" scenarios, which are always interesting to think about.

Trump wins in a landslide (Wins the popular vote by double digits) -- Less than 1%
Biden wins in a landslide -- 30%

Biden wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- 10%
Trump wins the popular vote but loses the EC -- Less than 1%

No one wins, it goes to the House (Neither candidate gets 270 votes, House picks the President) -- Less than 1%

The Presidency will be determined on a recount -- 5%

We get the exact same EC Map in 2020 that we did in 2016 -- Less than 1%

A 269 to 269 EC Vote Tie -- 1%

Biden wins at least one state Trump won in 2016 -- 92%
Trump wins at least on state that Hillary won in 2016 -- 37%
I don't get the bolded parts.
If it's a 269-269 tie, the House picks the President.
So how can that be at 1%, and the House picking the President at less than 1%?
Shouldn't the House picking the President have an equal or higher probability than a tie?
__________________
Vote Early. Vote Once. 2016 versus 2020
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

Last edited by Firestone; 21st September 2020 at 08:04 AM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:00 AM   #491
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,327
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't get why 538 goes "What we are doing is laying out probabilities" and people go "Oh what so you're saying you are psychic?"
In general people tend to say that kind of thing if what the pundit says is uncomfortable .

Somebody who would very much like President Trump to be reelected either has to accept that he is currently trailing very badly in the polls and currently looks relatively unlikely to be reelected or they can try to find ways to discredit that information.

One way is to say that the polls are simply wrong. 2016 gives some ammunition for that though in most cases the later polls were "right" within the margin of error (margin of error being something which is ignored by pretty much everyone).

Another is to attempt to discredit the pundit. Claiming that the pundit is making vague predictions is one way to do that. A lot of people who don't understand polling and probability want pundits to make early, specific, accurate, predictions. FiveThirtyEight don't do any of those things. They change their forecasts regularly in light of new information, they are clear about the uncertainty in those forecasts and because the forecasts are updated regularly, most of the earlier ones are "wrong".
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:04 AM   #492
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 30,327
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
I don't get the bolded parts.
If it's a 269-269, the House picks the President.
So how can that be at 1%, and the House picking the President at less than 1%?
Shouldn't The House picking the President have an equal or higher probability than a tie?
Dunno.

This is the current list of forecasts:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

The 269-269 EC tie isn't there as a different line to the house deciding any more.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:06 AM   #493
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Dunno.

This is the current list of forecasts:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

The 269-269 EC tie isn't there as a different line to the house deciding any more.
Ok, thanks. Probably a typo somewhere.
__________________
Vote Early. Vote Once. 2016 versus 2020
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:10 AM   #494
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
Oh the 269-269 thing came from their actual election predictions in which Biden wins 77 out every 100 predicted scenarios and Trump wins in 22 out of every 100 predicted scenarios. The 269-269 just accounts for the odd percentage out and they might be using different metrics for that then their "Scenario Probabilities."

Should have made that clearer.

So basically it's 77% Chance Biden Wins, 22% Chance Trump Wins, 1% Chance "Other" and "Other" includes a 269-269 split as one of its possibilities.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 21st September 2020 at 08:11 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:15 AM   #495
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh the 269-269 thing came from their actual election predictions in which Biden wins 77 out every 100 predicted scenarios and Trump wins in 22 out of every 100 predicted scenarios. The 269-269 just accounts for the odd percentage out and they might be using different metrics for that then their "Scenario Probabilities."

Should have made that clearer.

So basically it's 77% Chance Biden Wins, 22% Chance Trump Wins, 1% Chance "Other" and "Other" includes a 269-269 split as one of its possibilities.
No problem.

Was looking at the 538 model for 2016.
At this point in the race, Clinton was around 60%, then rose to 87% after the debates, down to 64% after Comey's infamous letter, and up to 71% on election day (all % are probabilities to win).
__________________
Vote Early. Vote Once. 2016 versus 2020
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:48 AM   #496
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
No problem.

Was looking at the 538 model for 2016.
At this point in the race, Clinton was around 60%, then rose to 87% after the debates, down to 64% after Comey's infamous letter, and up to 71% on election day (all % are probabilities to win).
I am wondering, have they modified their algorithm since then?

If they went back and recalculated 2016 using the current algorithm, would they give the same result?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:50 AM   #497
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,384
But how do they figure GOP cheating and Russian involvement in their algorithms?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 08:54 AM   #498
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
But how do they figure GOP cheating and Russian involvement in their algorithms?
Well you can't. That's a completely different system to simulate.

That's why the question is less "Will Biden win the election" and more "Will Trump care?"
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:03 AM   #499
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I don't think they ever claim to know what is going to happen.

They claim to be able to take polling data, apply their model to normalise it and then provide an approximate probability (with error bars) for various outcomes.

Those probabilities will then change as few information becomes available (for example one candidate moving significantly in the polls), or if they make changes to their model.

IMO it's a reasonable approach.

At the moment, it appears that the most likely outcome is that Biden will win both the Electoral College and the popular vote. If President Trumps poll numbers were to improve significantly, or if he was successful in making postal voting illegal, then I'd expect that to change.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't get why 538 goes "What we are doing is laying out probabilities" and people go "Oh what so you're saying you are psychic?"
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
In general people tend to say that kind of thing if what the pundit says is uncomfortable .

Somebody who would very much like President Trump to be reelected either has to accept that he is currently trailing very badly in the polls and currently looks relatively unlikely to be reelected or they can try to find ways to discredit that information.

One way is to say that the polls are simply wrong. 2016 gives some ammunition for that though in most cases the later polls were "right" within the margin of error (margin of error being something which is ignored by pretty much everyone).

Another is to attempt to discredit the pundit. Claiming that the pundit is making vague predictions is one way to do that. A lot of people who don't understand polling and probability want pundits to make early, specific, accurate, predictions. FiveThirtyEight don't do any of those things. They change their forecasts regularly in light of new information, they are clear about the uncertainty in those forecasts and because the forecasts are updated regularly, most of the earlier ones are "wrong".
I have no problem with 538's approach. I'm not discrediting them. I'm simply pointing out that the information they are providing is nothing more than an educated guess. It's a summation of the polls and their numbers are only as good as those polls are. It's like trying to tell us what the weather will probably be like 43 days from now.

There's a danger in putting too much stock in these kinds of forecasts: voter apathy. We saw it to some extent in 2016. Clinton had a 71% chance, according to 538 and we all know what happened. In an election such as this one, where it's so important to get Biden and anti-Trump voters motivated to actually vote for Biden, I fear that information like this might lead to voter apathy.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:06 AM   #500
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
There's a danger in putting too much stock in these kinds of forecasts: voter apathy. We saw it to some extent in 2016. Clinton had a 71% chance, according to 538 and we all know what happened. In an election such as this one, where it's so important to get Biden and anti-Trump voters motivated to actually vote for Biden, I fear that information like this might lead to voter apathy.
Yeah I also remember people on this very board spending all of October where almost literally every post from them was jumping up and down having absolute hissy fits over the fact that 538 was so "Bullish" on Trump, giving him mid-high twenty percent chances when everyone else was giving him some microscopic chance.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:06 AM   #501
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,189
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
But how do they figure GOP cheating and Russian involvement in their algorithms?
I don't know if they'd have to specifically account for Russian involvement, since much of that would be reflected in the polls.

(For example, if they set up a bot-net to promote Stubby McBonespurs, it would change his popularity and the polls, and thus their model would adjust accordingly.)

Admittedly, some forms of GOP cheating would be harder to quantify (such as voter suppression).
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:37 AM   #502
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,384
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well you can't. That's a completely different system to simulate.

That's why the question is less "Will Biden win the election" and more "Will Trump care?"
Will Trump, the GOP and the GOP SCOTUS care? I don't think so. It's Bush v Gore again, but with many more states to contest.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:44 AM   #503
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,071
Let's say I have an ordinary six-sided dice. I say that the chance of rolling a six is 1/6, or only about 16,67%.

Does saying this make me psychic? Nope. If you proceed to roll a six, does that make me wrong? Nope. I'm stating probability, not gazing into a crystal ball. Experts predicted Trump had a 20% chance of winning, just like you had a one in six chance of rolling a six on that die. People heard that and seemed to think 20% means zero percent, and that Trump's victory proved the experts and their models wrong.

Furthermore, whenever you make predictions, you can use the data from past predictions to gauge how well your models are performing. This goes for everything from election forecasts to weather reports. I believe experts correctly predict election results quite often. Again, of course they're not psychic, but they're not pretending to be.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:49 AM   #504
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Let's say I have an ordinary six-sided dice. I say that the chance of rolling a six is 1/6, or only about 16,67%.

Does saying this make me psychic?
On the internet? Sadly yes. Same as how making basic level inference from statements makes you a mind reader.

Quote:
Nope. If you proceed to roll a six, does that make me wrong? Nope. I'm stating probability, not gazing into a crystal ball. Experts predicted Trump had a 20% chance of winning, just like you had a one in six chance of rolling a six on that die. People heard that and seemed to think 20% means zero percent, and that Trump's victory proved the experts and their models wrong.

Furthermore, whenever you make predictions, you can use the data from past predictions to gauge how well your models are performing. This goes for everything from election forecasts to weather reports. I believe experts correctly predict election results quite often. Again, of course they're not psychic, but they're not pretending to be.
All true. The irony is how many idiots (*cough* Scott Adams *cough*) "predicted" a Trump win on nothing but either a lucky guess or just general contrarian naysaying and are trying to parley their lucky guesses into some sort of political insight.

Yes Scott Adams said Trump was going to win and Nate Silver say he probably wasn't going to and Trump won, but Nate was still far, far, far more "right" in what he was actually saying.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 21st September 2020 at 09:58 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 09:56 AM   #505
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,071
It's a big problem with video games, too. Devs will implement a weapon/magic spear/laser cannon/whatever with, say, a 90% chance of hitting, and then players will slam them because they think 90% means "hits virtually every time", and they try it in practice and miss three times in a row, and decide something must be wrong with the game, when in reality it's just random chance producing, well, random results.

Fun fact, this is apparently why some devs have taken to implementing literal die rolls in their games. Instead of saying "the chance is 50%", they'll say "you need to roll 4-6", and then show die faces to the player when results come in. Dice are something physical we can all relate to.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 11:15 AM   #506
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
In general people tend to say that kind of thing if what the pundit says is uncomfortable .
^^this.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 11:25 AM   #507
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,898
Second judge rules against USPS, says election mail must be prioritized

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/polit...dny/index.html
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 11:49 AM   #508
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Let's say I have an ordinary six-sided dice. I say that the chance of rolling a six is 1/6, or only about 16,67%.

Does saying this make me psychic? Nope. If you proceed to roll a six, does that make me wrong? Nope. I'm stating probability, not gazing into a crystal ball. Experts predicted Trump had a 20% chance of winning, just like you had a one in six chance of rolling a six on that die. People heard that and seemed to think 20% means zero percent, and that Trump's victory proved the experts and their models wrong.

Furthermore, whenever you make predictions, you can use the data from past predictions to gauge how well your models are performing. This goes for everything from election forecasts to weather reports. I believe experts correctly predict election results quite often. Again, of course they're not psychic, but they're not pretending to be.
All true. However, it would be a little weird to have a site dedicated to analyzing the probability of the next die roll based on the results of a bunch of test die rolls. Probability is a weird thing to apply to elections.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 12:10 PM   #509
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
It's a big problem with video games, too. Devs will implement a weapon/magic spear/laser cannon/whatever with, say, a 90% chance of hitting, and then players will slam them because they think 90% means "hits virtually every time", and they try it in practice and miss three times in a row, and decide something must be wrong with the game, when in reality it's just random chance producing, well, random results.

Fun fact, this is apparently why some devs have taken to implementing literal die rolls in their games. Instead of saying "the chance is 50%", they'll say "you need to roll 4-6", and then show die faces to the player when results come in. Dice are something physical we can all relate to.
If you want to learn the cruel side of probability, play poker.

Many times I have been a 90% favorite, or better, and still lost the pot. Drawing dead is 0%, anything above that is not 0%
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 12:56 PM   #510
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I am wondering, have they modified their algorithm since then?
It's basically the same model, but with a number of adjustments, mainly due to the pandemic.
The model accounts for more uncertainty, has a more sophisticated approach to the potential impact of the economic situation on the results, accounts for uncertain turnout, adds the COVID-19 situation in states as an element of correlation, has a smaller convention bounce adjustment.

The model also takes into account how easy it is to vote in each state, and has a more prudent approach to variations due to special events, like the debates.

One important disclaimer: "It does not account for the possibility of extraconstitutional shenanigans by Trump or by anyone else, such as trying to prevent mail ballots from being counted."

In 2016 they had 3 versions of the model, now only one.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-of-covid-19/


Quote:
If they went back and recalculated 2016 using the current algorithm, would they give the same result?
Didn't find this info, would be interesting (but given the weight of COVID-19 related changes, probably not that relevant).
__________________
Vote Early. Vote Once. 2016 versus 2020
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

Last edited by Firestone; 21st September 2020 at 01:07 PM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 02:03 PM   #511
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The most effective Ad, IMO, that the Lincoln Project could make would be of the many, many instances in which Trump smack-talks enemies and opponents by comparing them to dogs;

and then juxtaposition that with images of the rescue dog Biden and Obama adopted while in the white house.

According to Wiki, Donald Trump is the first president since James K. Polk 11th President, 1846) to not have a presidential pet while in office.

Animal lovers might take note of that fact.
I beg to differ. Trump has plenty of pets:

Barr, Mnuchin, Meadows, Graham, Jordan..............
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 02:09 PM   #512
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The most effective Ad, IMO, that the Lincoln Project could make would be of the many, many instances in which Trump smack-talks enemies and opponents by comparing them to dogs;

and then juxtaposition that with images of the rescue dog Biden and Obama adopted while in the white house.

According to Wiki, Donald Trump is the first president since James K. Polk 11th President, 1846) to not have a presidential pet while in office.

Animal lovers might take note of that fact.
Nah. There's plenty of horrific things to attack Trump for. Him not owning a dog isn't one of them. Lots of people don't have pets. If that's unusual for a president, so what. No one should own a pet just for the sake of owning a pet.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 02:27 PM   #513
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,384
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Nah. There's plenty of horrific things to attack Trump for. Him not owning a dog isn't one of them. Lots of people don't have pets. If that's unusual for a president, so what. No one should own a pet just for the sake of owning a pet.
Trump should never own a pet. It would be animal abuse.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 02:29 PM   #514
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,189
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Trump should never own a pet. It would be animal abuse.
I would be all up for buying trump a pet lion. Or cobra. Is the tiger king still around?

On the condition he sleeps with it at night.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 02:38 PM   #515
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,066
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
He despises everyone because he's a narcissistic psychopath with the exception of kindred spirits like Putin, Kim Jong-un, etc.
Worth note: He doesn't actually like Putin, Kim, etc. He does, however, admire them.

(I'm not arguing with you here, Stacyhs, I'm simply adding the specific sense in which he doesn't despise them.)
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 03:10 PM   #516
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,377
Trump introduces Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and the crowd boos him!
"He's opening up," Trump says, to try to placate the audience.

Trump says the election is a choice between him and Communism!

"I like Putin. He likes me."
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 03:11 PM   #517
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Worth note: He doesn't actually like Putin, Kim, etc. He does, however, admire them.

(I'm not arguing with you here, Stacyhs, I'm simply adding the specific sense in which he doesn't despise them.)
I agree with you 100%. I don't think Trump 'likes' anyone. Psychopaths don't really have friends because they don't really "like" anyone. They can admire them for certain traits as you said, but 'like' them? No. But they certainly can despise people. Most people they just consider beneath them and not worthy of their time other than how they can be of use. We've seen Trump use people time and time again and then turn on them the minute they're no longer of use.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 03:12 PM   #518
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump introduces Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and the crowd boos him!
"He's opening up," Trump says, to try to placate the audience.

Trump says the election is a choice between him and Communism!

"I like Putin. He likes me."
Totally delusional.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 03:19 PM   #519
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,066
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Let's say I have an ordinary six-sided dice. I say that the chance of rolling a six is 1/6, or only about 16,67%.

Does saying this make me psychic? Nope. If you proceed to roll a six, does that make me wrong? Nope. I'm stating probability, not gazing into a crystal ball. Experts predicted Trump had a 20% chance of winning, just like you had a one in six chance of rolling a six on that die. People heard that and seemed to think 20% means zero percent, and that Trump's victory proved the experts and their models wrong.
And in truth, much of the screaming about this election, so-called "silent" voters, and the like, are based on the false assertion that "the polls all got it wrong!", which they generally didn't. I'll agree that certain people calling probabilities used crap models - this happens fairly often even when discussing nonthinking designs. It becomes more difficult when discussing people, particularly when one is trying to account for errors that pollsters make, rather than just random people changing their mind for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
All true. However, it would be a little weird to have a site dedicated to analyzing the probability of the next die roll based on the results of a bunch of test die rolls. Probability is a weird thing to apply to elections.
What you mean is that this is weird to you. To me, it makes perfect sense to note, among other examples, which polling firms are more or less accurate, to calculate probabilities based on polling - and to catalogue all such matters publicly so that they could do likewise, and know what's being done.

(Personally, I'd love to know what on earth Rasmussen is doing to create such a systematic bias, or why NBC's new polling produces such wild month-to-month swings - but they aren't about to reveal their trade secrets.)

Last edited by Mumbles; 21st September 2020 at 03:21 PM.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2020, 03:23 PM   #520
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 29,451
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump introduces Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and the crowd boos him!
"He's opening up," Trump says, to try to placate the audience.

Trump says the election is a choice between him and Communism!

"I like Putin. He likes me."
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Totally delusional.
Many people like their useful idiots. Trump just wishes he could murder his opponents, like his hero.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.