Those correction notices, in full
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
Those correction notices, in full
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#2The cover up is usually worse than the crime.
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#3[flagged]
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#4The cover up is usually worse than the crime.
Do you think these errata being published are a good thing?
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#5[flagged]
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#6[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#7[flagged]
The paper [1] is linked in the OP. Section 3, the section invalidated by the errata, looks at data on voter preferences. So the answer to your question is "a lot", assuming that you think that "using data on the beliefs of voters" is in some way important to a paper on electoral strategy.
[1] http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/AOAS...
Re: Those correction notices, in full
#8Re: Those correction notices, in full
#9[flagged]
FWIW, I don't think this is really a Trump era exclusive. People have always believed whatever they wanted to believe, facts and accuracy be damned. IMHO understanding this as an inexorable human condition makes it much easier to understand the world.
What actually matters is people can be persuaded to _want_ to believe different things, so the only real leverage is in shaping those wants—not in being right.