81–90 of 213 posts
What's the probability that these guys are friends in real life who both mutually benefit from the popularity of their public feud?
I have a hard time believing Taleb can keep any friends. He thinks everyone is an idiot, and doesn't have any reservation about telling them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, "extremely possible" is perhaps a poor choice of words, and could be interpreted uncharitably as a hedge against any outcome, but I think there's an obvious charitable interpretation too: that things that have a 20% chance of occurring turn out to occur around 20% of the time. No one would be blown away by surprise if I proclaimed "SIX!" then rolled a six-sided die and got a six, but that's even less likely tha…
Loads of people criticized Silver for not having "predicted" Trump's electoral victory. I imagine Silver's language was trying to hand-hold people to an understanding that even 20% probability events happen 1 out of 5 times. With so many people trying to twist and spin every headline, prediction, number, I appreciate Silver's attempt to make a reasonable guess with transparent methodologies.
From a business perspective, the volatility of Silver's models seem like a feature - they enhance the drama / sensationalism of election coverage. One week, he's telling me candidate X will likely win, the next week it's candidate Y, and I'm on the edge of my seat. If Silver really believed these probabilities were correct, he should be willing make bets with these odds, otherwise his incentives are distorted.
Yes, this is the source of the disagreement. Silver, I think, probably gets the math. But his aim is to entertain. Taleb's aim is something like predictive rigor. God knows why he cares about Silver. I think everyone gets that Silver is doing entertainment.
Funny how he's now "just entertainment" after such a public and embarrassing misfire.
From a business perspective, the volatility of Silver's models seem like a feature - they enhance the drama / sensationalism of election coverage. One week, he's telling me candidate X will likely win, the next week it's candidate Y, and I'm on the edge of my seat. If Silver really believed these probabilities were correct, he should be willing make bets with these odds, otherwise his incentives are distorted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an example of a time where Nate Silver has shown a misunderstanding of probability? Everything I've read by him has seemed informed.
The best criticism I can come up with is that 538 probably doesn't do a sufficient job of explaining to its audience that their published probabilities are predictions for what would happen if the event occurred today . This seems to be one of Taleb's (and others') criticisms of their predictions: that they don't consider the probability of major unexpected events occurring between now and the event (like an athlete…
This is manifestly untrue. For the 2016 election 538 had a "Now-cast" that they very clearly marked as "Who would win the election if it were held today" (see here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) and their other models incorporated the fact that there's time left before the election. Due to people not finding the now-cast valuable they abandoned it for 2018.
Nate Silver definitely incorporates uncertainty in the forecast (and talks about it frequently), but it's not modeled as a random walk. Rather they use historical data to look at what polling now has to say about an election however far away the election is. Taleb's criticism that they don't consider a black swan event might be valid, but Silver isn't just predicting the election now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Taleb arguing that his model comes being modeled during periods of relative calm. So when the black swan event does happen, that wasn't priced in as a possibility at all, creating an arbitrage there.
“his model” meaning Silver’s model? That sounds like it might be right. I think another commenter here correctly identified that it’s a misunderstanding -- Silver’s model estimates “the election result of the election were to happen tomorrow”, so unlikely events in the coming months don’t need to be accounted for by definition. If so, I think there’s a valid criticism that the “now-cast” notion is a bit deceptive, an…
The nowcast does, but the nowcast isn't the main output, the two (polls-plus and polls-only) forecast models are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think there's a constraint on "Nate Silver has a probability model" that mathematically guarantees "Nate Silver's probability model" is correct If I'm understanding the article correctly, it's not talking about models being "correct," it's just talking about the probabilities of all the outcomes adding up to 100%, which means you can't place a bet that guarantees you make money regardless of the outcome. In…
If over time, your forecasts predictably change, then you can be arbitraged. If e.g. I know that you'll have a probability below 40% at some point in the future, and I know you'll have a number above 41% at some point in the future, then it's trivial to create a strategy over time that is guaranteed to make money. Taleb's claim, as I understand it, is that Silver is incorporating random noise into his model and so wi…
If I am not mistaken, an opportunity for arbitrage is not created merely by a certainty that they will change somehow; it would require that they change in a specific way, and deterministically so. Absent this, a bet would just be speculation, not arbitrage.
Nassem Taleb is an arrogant asshole who can't write. I tried reading "The Black Swan" and gave up in a flurry of swearing after less than 100 pages because he utterly failed to justify any of his breathless assertions with anything resembling an argument. Assertion after assertion with no reasoning linking them. Game to Silver on points. At least he can back up his arguments with explanations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, "extremely possible" is perhaps a poor choice of words, and could be interpreted uncharitably as a hedge against any outcome, but I think there's an obvious charitable interpretation too: that things that have a 20% chance of occurring turn out to occur around 20% of the time. No one would be blown away by surprise if I proclaimed "SIX!" then rolled a six-sided die and got a six, but that's even less likely tha…
Loads of people criticized Silver for not having "predicted" Trump's electoral victory. I imagine Silver's language was trying to hand-hold people to an understanding that even 20% probability events happen 1 out of 5 times. With so many people trying to twist and spin every headline, prediction, number, I appreciate Silver's attempt to make a reasonable guess with transparent methodologies.
538 also predicted lower chances of victory in the weeks and months leading up to that, then adjusted it on election day vanishing away their earlier guesses. This isn't wrong on the face of it, but people infer from the final datapoint to the conclusion later that same day about 538's accuracy.
What I am saying is: 538 needs to keep a historical record of their predictions.
I really want to be Nassim Taleb, I don't want to get a real job, I don't want to be a slave for any kind of rules or laws whether in corporates, government or academia, I am much bigger than that, I just want to make enough money trading and shorting stocks during an economic bubble and retire young and then set myself emperor of the world and make fun of whoever I don't like such those academics who can't make 6 fi…
The proof of the pudding being in the eating, and all that.
There's something to be said for respecting somebody who betted on something he called and won (especially if they did it repeatedly), especially when most others were all against the very possibility of them being right...
And being free with fuck you money does give you some freedom to say truths (even if they're just your personal truths) employees can't.