Comments on: Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics...and Voter Polls

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics...and Voter Polls

jeanmari — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:40:29 -0800

Margins of Error We can't seem to let the future alone. Even though we often get predictions about it so wrong. Because, as Niels Bohr once said, "Prediction is very difficult. Especially if it is about the future." What are the origins of political polling (beware of awful interface design)? And how is political polling evolving?

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:02:12 -0800

"Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen." - Homer Simpson also: "Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything." - Homer Simpson

By: AwkwardPause

AwkwardPause — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:26:28 -0800

The Bohr quote is disputed (but funny nonetheless).

By: wittgenstein

wittgenstein — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:29:56 -0800

Thanks for this. I can use the David Moore interview in class.

By: fings

fings — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:29:20 -0800

I believe the correct quote is "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

By: piers

piers — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:37:04 -0800

Something that bothers me about the Slate article (and about other similar claims about markets accurately predicting some event) is that markets don't actually "predict" anything. They only reflect the relative likelihood of an event occurring based on the available information at that time. Sometimes, unlikely things just happen without enough warning for the market to catch up, as was the case when Obama unexpectedly lost in New Hampshire. If the markets were trading, say, totals for a pair of dice, 12 would always have a low price because it's relatively unlikely, but sure enough it would actually happen sometimes (once out of 36 rolls, on average).