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

All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

rssdss.design.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 216 posts

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#61

Post by chris_f »

rossdavidh wrote: post #56

So, I basically agree with everything this article says, but it seems to miss a basic point. If journalists do what this paper suggests, they make less money. Journalists, and the newsmedia corporations and organizations that employ them, don't run with the most inflammatory headline possible as an accidental fluke of a mistake that they were too careless to catch. Even public sector newsmedia organizations use measu…

Exactly. I stated calling systems that work this way "Bad by Design."

Sometimes the design is deliberately setup that way by an individual or group with something to gain, but other times it is just because the system contains different parties with competing interests.

Anytime I see a clearly inefficient or ineffective system the first question I try to figure out is whether it works that way by design. In many cases once I learn more about it, the answer is yes.

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#62

Post by not2b »

puranjay wrote: post #30
ajuc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's very little unprecedented events in modern history, and pandemic certainly isn't one.

Complete lockdowns across multiple countries and cessation of all economic activity certainly is unprecedented.

We aren't ceasing all economic activity, fortunately.

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#63

Post by alharith »

rossdavidh wrote: post #56

So, I basically agree with everything this article says, but it seems to miss a basic point. If journalists do what this paper suggests, they make less money. Journalists, and the newsmedia corporations and organizations that employ them, don't run with the most inflammatory headline possible as an accidental fluke of a mistake that they were too careless to catch. Even public sector newsmedia organizations use measu…

I don’t think the deficiencies of major news organizations have ever been as blindingly obvious to me as they have been over the past month. I knew it was bad. I didn’t realize exactly how bad it was. For them, even a national crisis is just an occasion to twist against Trump. Yes Trump is far, far, far from perfect, but there’s a huge difference between honest, factual reporting and these transparent efforts to use a tragedy to take him down. Nothing more obvious than the attempt to pit Dr. Fauci as somehow being "against" Trump or being "silenced" only for him to come on national radio and set the record straight.

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#64

Post by [deleted] »

rossdavidh wrote: post #56

So, I basically agree with everything this article says, but it seems to miss a basic point. If journalists do what this paper suggests, they make less money. Journalists, and the newsmedia corporations and organizations that employ them, don't run with the most inflammatory headline possible as an accidental fluke of a mistake that they were too careless to catch. Even public sector newsmedia organizations use measu…

[deleted]

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#65

Post by MaxBarraclough »

rossdavidh wrote: post #56

So, I basically agree with everything this article says, but it seems to miss a basic point. If journalists do what this paper suggests, they make less money. Journalists, and the newsmedia corporations and organizations that employ them, don't run with the most inflammatory headline possible as an accidental fluke of a mistake that they were too careless to catch. Even public sector newsmedia organizations use measu…

> If journalists do what this paper suggests, they make less money.

This is clearly true, but I wonder if must always be so.

In academia, lying in a publication can be career-ending, which acts to broadly 'scare them straight'. For academics, it's desirable to be highly read and cited, but to be seen to be dishonest is the end of the road. Could it be possible to create similar incentives for journalists?

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#67

Post by lopmotr »

xg15 wrote: post #23
scribu wrote: post #4

Reading the examples, where people jumped on a single mistake to discredit an entire report points to some sad conclusions: 1. Scientific literacy is super low in the general population. 2. Motivated reasoning is rampant. People will believe anything that enables them to do what they wanted to do anyway.

> 2. Motivated reasoning is rampant. This is an important point. Scientific scrutiny is extremely important, but there is still a difference between a judge that is stern but fair - and one that actively wants you to fail. Motivated reasoners have no problems holding opposing parties to impossibly high standards while accepting claims without any evidence as valid arguments for their side. Today, climate scientists h…

> We also start seeing changes in weather patterns that are hard to ignore even for laymen.

Hard to ignore by motivated reasoners! Changes in weather patterns observed by individuals using their own experience are not evidence of global climate change. If there's science showing that, then yes, but personal experience doesn't add any value to the conclusion, it just reinforces whatever the person already wants to believe.

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#68

Post by cousin_it »

> Journalists must get quotes from other experts before publishing

No, this isn't enough. This whole way of thinking isn't enough. It's a big part of the reason for the current situation.

Journalists should report what's true, not what Tom, Dick or Harry said. If a journalist isn't qualified to make object-level claims on a given topic, don't write on that topic. For example, if Bob says there's a forest fire, then instead of publishing "Bob says there's a forest fire", you must do enough legwork to tell your readers "There's a forest fire" or "There isn't".

I allow myself to ignore all journalism that don't follow that guideline, and it makes me happier.

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#69

Post by watwut »

rossdavidh wrote: post #56

So, I basically agree with everything this article says, but it seems to miss a basic point. If journalists do what this paper suggests, they make less money. Journalists, and the newsmedia corporations and organizations that employ them, don't run with the most inflammatory headline possible as an accidental fluke of a mistake that they were too careless to catch. Even public sector newsmedia organizations use measu…

The majority of publications and articles did not got it fundamentally wrong. There is subset on right wing that is popular and got it wrong intentionally. But mainstream had bad article here and there while majority being not fundamentally wrong.

Re: All models are wrong, but some are completely wrong

#70

Post by acqq »

cousin_it wrote: post #68

> Journalists must get quotes from other experts before publishing No, this isn't enough. This whole way of thinking isn't enough. It's a big part of the reason for the current situation. Journalists should report what's true, not what Tom, Dick or Harry said. If a journalist isn't qualified to make object-level claims on a given topic, don't write on that topic. For example, if Bob says there's a forest fire, then i…

> Journalists should report what is true, not what Tom, Dick or Harry said.

Especially they should not give 33% plausibility to Tom, 33% to Dick and 33% to Harry. Which is what they typically do, and call that "professional journalism."

If Tom represents 95% of scientists and Dick and Harry the fringe 5% also financed by (let say) tobacco industry or oil corporations, or Boeing, or those paid by the CIA, they should not even mention Dick and Harry in the same article (or TV a show), especially not in anything worth a major headline. They should appear with the smallest possible note in some smallest possible corner and with the title like "oil corporations paid these persons to support them again."

Sadly, but that sounds like a dream. The world would be very different then.

Post reply on HN