Sandbox: Difference between revisions
Laurie snell (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Submitted by Paul Alper | Submitted by Paul Alper | ||
==Forecasting Campaign 2010== | |||
T'he Wall Street Journal<br> | |||
October 23, 2010<br> | |||
The Numbers Guy (Carl Blank)] says.<br> | |||
My print column this week examines the tough task facing forecasters of the House of Representatives races this fall. Political scientists, veteran pundits and number crunchers have advanced the field considerably from several decades ago, thanks to freely available poll data and advanced computer models, but they still run up against inherent challenges of quantifying public mood and the small number of observations: There is only one midterm election every four years, after all. | |||
Of course it is interesting to see how the predictions were | |||
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes. | |||
the prediction of the model is that the Democrats will end up with 199 seats, or a loss of 56 seats. | |||
Submitted by Laurie Snell<br> | |||
To be continued |
Revision as of 15:28, 7 November 2010
Comments
A reasonable explanation for the probability confusion alluded to in
a.) Linda is a bank teller.
b.) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
is that the language of logic and the language of English are not identical. For example, "Or" in logic means either X or Y or both, whereas "or" in English usually means the exclusive "Or" in logic, either X or Y but not both.
When it comes to "and," the reader, when not misreading the "and" for "or," tends to substitute "who," so instead of X and Y, the reader is really considering X|Y which also leads to the belief that (b) is more likely than (a).
Submitted by Paul Alper
Forecasting Campaign 2010
T'he Wall Street Journal
October 23, 2010
The Numbers Guy (Carl Blank)] says.
My print column this week examines the tough task facing forecasters of the House of Representatives races this fall. Political scientists, veteran pundits and number crunchers have advanced the field considerably from several decades ago, thanks to freely available poll data and advanced computer models, but they still run up against inherent challenges of quantifying public mood and the small number of observations: There is only one midterm election every four years, after all.
Of course it is interesting to see how the predictions were
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.
the prediction of the model is that the Democrats will end up with 199 seats, or a loss of 56 seats.
Submitted by Laurie Snell
To be continued