Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#11

Post by spec »

kenjackson wrote: post #6
spec wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about his failure in predicting UK elections results, US unemployment rate, Maine's same sex marriage vote, special Senate elections in Massachusetts? These are just a few examples that I remember. But then the NY Times thinks that Krugman deserves the coverage too...

You do realize that even people who have incredibly good prediction records, do get things wrong. You can't really point to a specific thing and say, "you suck because you didn't predict this". Look at the totality of their record. And Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics, and numerous other awards for his work in Economics. I honestly think you'd be hardpressed to find a more qualified economist (on matters of eco…

The point was that selectively praising someone's accurate predictions without mentioning his failures is wrong.

Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas.

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#12

Post by kenjackson »

spec wrote: post #11
kenjackson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that even people who have incredibly good prediction records, do get things wrong. You can't really point to a specific thing and say, "you suck because you didn't predict this". Look at the totality of their record. And Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics, and numerous other awards for his work in Economics. I honestly think you'd be hardpressed to find a more qualified economist (on matters of eco…

The point was that selectively praising someone's accurate predictions without mentioning his failures is wrong. Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas.

The poster was clearly congratulating Nate, and then pointing out something specifically that Nate had done well.

It's like if you're congratulating Steve Jobs on a successful iPad launch. You aren't obligated to also mention all of the products he has worked on that haven't done so well.

And I hardly doubt anyone was trying to convince you, or any other reader on HN, that Nate may have mispredicted something. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no one on this planet who has not made a false prediction.

But since you're so adamant about this, could you put together a list of his complete record with links?

And sure, Krugman has a Nobel Prize, Clark Medal, Ivy League tenured job, nominated for a Pulitzer, but he'll have to live with spec calling him a partisan hack.

I'm not sure anyone would mind that tradeoff.

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#13

Post by _delirium »

spec wrote: post #11
kenjackson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that even people who have incredibly good prediction records, do get things wrong. You can't really point to a specific thing and say, "you suck because you didn't predict this". Look at the totality of their record. And Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics, and numerous other awards for his work in Economics. I honestly think you'd be hardpressed to find a more qualified economist (on matters of eco…

The point was that selectively praising someone's accurate predictions without mentioning his failures is wrong. Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas.

> Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas.

That seems to be a general feature of politically-engaged economists on both the left and right. I see Krugman as basically a mirror version of Milton Friedman: a blowhard whose statements on politics and policy preferences are usually wildly unsupported by empirical evidence, but who did also do some genuinely good economic work.

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#14

Post by spec »

aamar wrote: post #7
spec wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about his failure in predicting UK elections results, US unemployment rate, Maine's same sex marriage vote, special Senate elections in Massachusetts? These are just a few examples that I remember. But then the NY Times thinks that Krugman deserves the coverage too...

Agree that we should be thoughtful of the misses as well as the hits, and he's had some misses. However, I didn't recall Silver getting the special MA Senate election of Scott Brown wrong, and he seems not to have: ( http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/538-model-posits-brow... ). It would have been surprising if he did, since it was an easy one. Were you thinking of a different election?

You're right - it appears that he updated his model right before the elections and I only saw his earlier posts. However, he had a post in 2009 entitled "Could a Republican Win Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?" with his answer being "Very probably not."

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#15

Post by kenjackson »

_delirium wrote: post #13
spec wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that selectively praising someone's accurate predictions without mentioning his failures is wrong. Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas.

> Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas. That seems to be a general feature of politically-engaged economists on both the left and right. I see Krugman as basically a mirror version of Milton Friedman: a blowhard whose statements on politics and policy preferences are usually wildly unsupported by empirical evidenc…

This is generally true of politically-engaged writers of any sort. Politics, at least popular politics (versus academic writing), is polarizing by definition. And generally the data isn't there to support any preference (or equally true... the data is there to support any preference).

This is why, I believe, that why someone supports a particular preference is almost as important as the preference. Although I should add figuring out why people have certain preferences is often difficult, since people are often not forthcoming with their underlying assumptions.

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#16

Post by dandelany »

spec wrote: post #4
whakojacko wrote: post #2

Congrats to Nate Silver for his fantastic job. 538's success in predicting the 08 elections was really impressive and glad to see him get even more (well-deserved) coverage.

How about his failure in predicting UK elections results, US unemployment rate, Maine's same sex marriage vote, special Senate elections in Massachusetts? These are just a few examples that I remember. But then the NY Times thinks that Krugman deserves the coverage too...

Honestly, I don't find value in 538 based on the accuracy of its predictions, I find it in Nate's thoughtful and uncommonly math-informed analysis and commentary.

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#17

Post by spec »

kenjackson wrote: post #12
spec wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that selectively praising someone's accurate predictions without mentioning his failures is wrong. Krugman is a partisan hack that has a Nobel Prize is one very specific area of economics. It does not qualify him to opine on all other areas.

The poster was clearly congratulating Nate, and then pointing out something specifically that Nate had done well. It's like if you're congratulating Steve Jobs on a successful iPad launch. You aren't obligated to also mention all of the products he has worked on that haven't done so well. And I hardly doubt anyone was trying to convince you, or any other reader on HN, that Nate may have mispredicted something. In fac…

No, that poster was claiming that his coverage was "well-deserved" and I disagreed. He was not obligated to mention his failures, but I did, and that apparently troubles you greatly for some reason. Silver's whole reputation is based on his assumed accuracy and that's why it is important to provide a more complete record of his predictions (not that my post claims to do that or that I would care enough to do that; since you are so impressed by him, you're welcome to try).

Krugman's reputation as a partisan hack that opines on matter he is ignorant about is among other economists with no fewer accomplishments (but his reputation as a pompous ass is among everyone else).

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#18

Post by wtallis »

spec wrote: post #4
whakojacko wrote: post #2

Congrats to Nate Silver for his fantastic job. 538's success in predicting the 08 elections was really impressive and glad to see him get even more (well-deserved) coverage.

How about his failure in predicting UK elections results, US unemployment rate, Maine's same sex marriage vote, special Senate elections in Massachusetts? These are just a few examples that I remember. But then the NY Times thinks that Krugman deserves the coverage too...

So, he doesn't always get it right when there's a dearth of good polling data on hard-to-predict issues. And an American didn't do a very good job on his first attempt to predict a parliamentary election. Big deal.

He's only been in this business for two years, and in that time he's truly earned himself a good reputation. He's also been more open about his methodology than anybody in the mainstream media, and as he gets experience and constructive criticism he's put it to use improving his models. Regardless of whatever axe you have to grind, acquiring 538 represents a raising of the bar for the NYT's standards.

(The 538 team has been open enough about their methodology that it is very tempting to simply tell you to put up or shut up: Either find and explain some real flaws in his methods, come up with a better evidence-based method to predict something, or don't criticize him.)

Re: FiveThirtyEight relaunches on NYTimes.com

#20

Post by wtallis »

spec wrote: post #14
aamar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree that we should be thoughtful of the misses as well as the hits, and he's had some misses. However, I didn't recall Silver getting the special MA Senate election of Scott Brown wrong, and he seems not to have: ( http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/538-model-posits-brow... ). It would have been surprising if he did, since it was an easy one. Were you thinking of a different election?

You're right - it appears that he updated his model right before the elections and I only saw his earlier posts. However, he had a post in 2009 entitled "Could a Republican Win Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?" with his answer being "Very probably not."

His modus operandi is to build a model and feed it data as it becomes available. So when polling of a race is inconsistent and infrequent until right before the election, you shouldn't imply that it is at all improper behavior or Nate Silver's fault if his model and thus his prediction change drastically right before an election.

As for the early, subjective post about the odds, that was posted on 27 August 2009, just days after Ted Kennedy died, long before there was any concrete information about who would run even for the primaries, and before there was any concrete information about the electoral influence of the tea party movement. And Nate Silver was still probably right that Romney wouldn't have been able to take Kennedy's seat, since Romney wouldn't have attracted as many of the Tea Party voters.

Post reply on HN