1131: "Math"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

alanbbent
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:46 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby alanbbent » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:45 pm UTC

nooooo Please go back to making a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language. The US needs another political cartoonist like it needs a hole in the head.

That being said, I'm increasingly frustrated with how hard it is to actually find truth. Politicians lie constantly, and there's no way for normal folks to know the truth. Absolutely no way. Every last news source is biased. Even xkcd, which tends to appeal to knowledge-seekers, is biased. (I didn't vote for Romney, I'm not complaining about the direction of the bias.) People don't watch the news to be informed, they watch the news to feel good about decisions they've already made.

Every election is the closest one ever, because that makes people keep watching news and advertisements. And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby bmonk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

J L wrote:Was really no one predicting Romney's victory? It seemed like before the election, everyone said "Gee Willikers, it's so close, we can't say who'll win", and after the election, they're all like "just what we predicted".

I'm with Randall here. I was pretty sure Obama would win all along, but the media tried to make this crazy hype about the race. No surprise there, probably.

PS nice wordfilter.

Most of the (numeric) futures markets recently had Obama at around 60%+ chance of victory, Romney at 40%-
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby dudiobugtron » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:55 pm UTC

alanbbent wrote:nooooo Please go back to making a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language. The US needs another political cartoonist like it needs a hole in the head.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, this particular comic is basically just a sarcastic one-liner, and its title is "Math".
I don't think he's outside of his jurisdiction on this one.
Image

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Zylon » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

itaibn wrote:This comic isn't going to age well. Who would be able to tell what these lines mean after a few years?

I can barely tell what it means NOW. The text talks about comparing two things, but the graphic shows what appears to be a single point on a line. And then there's the unexplained dotted line.

I normally don't mind chart-based comics, but this one is really quite bad.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Coyne » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:09 pm UTC

Someguy945 wrote:Media kept talking about how the popular vote was really close. This tipped me off that the actual election was not even close and that they were stretching to find something that was.

Pundits always do this; otherwise people stop watching. Like in a football game: "Well folks, the score might be 46 to 3, but keep watching, because anything is possible..."
In all fairness...

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Game_boy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:26 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:President Obama tried to close Gitmo. Mitch "Scorched Earth! Hahahahahahahahaha!" McConnell wouldn't FUND the closing of Gitmo. Unless you thought President Obama should should make Gitmo prisoners pay for their own plane tickets, or just push the prisoners into the sea, this is not something you can lay at President Obama's doorstep.


So the President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the US Forces, has absolutely no power to move military prisoners from A to B without a Congressional bill? If he was really committed to it he'd have either a) ordered the military to make it happen or b) Addressed the nation that the ONLY thing stopping him was this dude with a checkbook.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Diadem » Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:15 pm UTC

Someguy945 wrote:Media kept talking about how the popular vote was really close. This tipped me off that the actual election was not even close and that they were stretching to find something that was.

Why did anybody buy that though? I'm not even from the US and even I immediately figured out that without the west-coast reporting popular vote figures were meaningless.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:50 am UTC

Game_boy wrote:
webgiant wrote:President Obama tried to close Gitmo. Mitch "Scorched Earth! Hahahahahahahahaha!" McConnell wouldn't FUND the closing of Gitmo. Unless you thought President Obama should should make Gitmo prisoners pay for their own plane tickets, or just push the prisoners into the sea, this is not something you can lay at President Obama's doorstep.


So the President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the US Forces, has absolutely no power to move military prisoners from A to B without a Congressional bill? If he was really committed to it he'd have either a) ordered the military to make it happen or b) Addressed the nation that the ONLY thing stopping him was this dude with a checkbook.


Until he actually got access to the secrets, he didn't know what he was up against.

My guess is that there were a bunch of guys there who had been kept for years with no legal charges against them. Some of them there was no evidence against, somebody just had suspicions after 9/11 and they grabbed anybody they thought might have info. There were others where the only evidence was confession under torture. Maybe there was evidence some of them were trained to be terrorists but they hadn't actually done anything before they were caught.

So you take them out of Gitmo and you put them into civilian prisons, and what then? You're supposed to charge them with something so you can have a trial, only with a whole lot of them you have no evidence that didn't come from torture. It's going to be hard to have a civilian trial. Most of them got here by being illegally kidnapped, some of them citizens of friendly nations kidnapped from those friendly nations. What is a civilian court going to do with all that? Illegally captured, illegally detained without trial for 6 years or more, tortured, no evidence against them that's legal to present? Maybe the military or the CIA says they have important evidence but it can't go into any legal records and it can't be seen by juries, only by judges who are not allowed to take notes and not allowed to tell anybody? The defense lawyers are not allowed to see the evidence?

And if we say somebody was held illegally and we let him go and maybe pay him some sort of reparations, and then he goes out and dies on a suicide terrorist mission after we let him go? That would be an interesting item for the re-election campaign.

There's no good answer. Either we admit that we were wrong to violate our own laws and international laws and geneva conventions etc, and we try to clean up. Find the people who were responsible and prosecute them, if necessary right up to Cheney and Bush. Face the way it would divide the USA. The people who say that we have to do the right thing or we aren't the USA any more, versus the people who say the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and when our national survival is at stake we should torture terrorists until they tell their secrets and then disappear the bodies, and if they wanted rights they shouldn't have acted against us. It's treason against the USA to take the terrorists' side, and punishing US patriots for doing what was necessary is plain wrong.

Or instead, just quietly ignore it. Become complicit, and try to accomplish other goals which would be lost in the firestorm if we tried to take a moral stand.

I know which choice Obama made, and I don't know the secrets he knew when he made that choice. My guesses could easily be wrong.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

Soteria
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Soteria » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:13 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
Game_boy wrote:
webgiant wrote:President Obama tried to close Gitmo. Mitch "Scorched Earth! Hahahahahahahahaha!" McConnell wouldn't FUND the closing of Gitmo. Unless you thought President Obama should should make Gitmo prisoners pay for their own plane tickets, or just push the prisoners into the sea, this is not something you can lay at President Obama's doorstep.


So the President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the US Forces, has absolutely no power to move military prisoners from A to B without a Congressional bill? If he was really committed to it he'd have either a) ordered the military to make it happen or b) Addressed the nation that the ONLY thing stopping him was this dude with a checkbook.


Until he actually got access to the secrets, he didn't know what he was up against.

My guess is that there were a bunch of guys there who had been kept for years with no legal charges against them. Some of them there was no evidence against, somebody just had suspicions after 9/11 and they grabbed anybody they thought might have info. There were others where the only evidence was confession under torture. Maybe there was evidence some of them were trained to be terrorists but they hadn't actually done anything before they were caught.


My biggest criticism of Obama in this is that he made a huge deal about it when he was running for president. He was very critical of Bush in that area. And now.... nothing. If it was important to him, and someone was blocking him, it would have been fairly trivial to get something done early in his term with all the support he had. I just think it speaks very poorly of him to get up on this high horse when he was a senator and then quietly go along with it once he became president.

Ardee
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:28 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Ardee » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:38 am UTC

Well all media reports of poll-of-poll averages point out that that method "does not have a margin of error"...

User avatar
Velexia
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Velexia » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:24 am UTC

SerialTroll wrote:
Velexia wrote:I predicted that Obama would win more than a year ago, and when Romney was nominated, and when Paul Ryan was chosen... and tonight. I must be psychic ~_^

.


What is sad, Velexia, is that you don't get you are doing the exact thing that Randall is poking fun at. Instead of looking at the scientific polling data, you are relying on your "predictions". Add yourself to the list of pundits that I don't listen to.

I have relied on electoral-vote.com and electionprojection. One is run by a liberal, the other a conservative. Each uses a conglomeration of polling data and have very open methodologies. Both predicted a 303 count for Obama's electoral count. Both will likely be dead on with the possible exception of Florida which is still too close to call.

Much like global warming or many other subjects, you can either look at facts or you can go with your gut. I trust facts over my "gut" and far over anyone else's "gut".

On a side note: I am so glad the election didn't come down to Florida this year.


1. I am not doing what Randall is poking fun at. What Randall is poking fun at is people who try to hype up the election with weak if not false data. What I was doing was in fact, the opposite. First because I was saying "Whatever, Obama is going to win, Romney is taking a fall, nothing to see here folks." and second because I didn't bother to say it during the "heat" of the race to try to hype things up. So, no.

I suppose you would have to take into consideration the alt-text to truly understand what he is poking fun at, which you conveniently seem to have ignored for the sake of argument. You sir, are just pathetic. Stop posting just to troll me please.

My predictions were based upon my observations, sounds like science to me. Observe, form hypothesis, observe some more, form theory/hypothesis, etc.

I watched both of those sites last night, to determine how likely it would be that I would have to start packing to leave the country, but as I suspected, I had nothing to worry about (except the usual things). Last I looked, seemed like Florida was going to Obama (very late last night). Anyway, I did notice that the projection was very accurate, which was interesting.

I'm not asking you to trust my gut feelings, and I'd call it my intuition... based upon my observations. Call it whatever you want, you were never asked to trust it. Anyway, this seems like a rather aimless thing you've brought up, except for your poor attempt to tell me that I am dumb for having an accurate intuition in regards to the elections...?

There was a 2... but it took a left turn and I took a right turn... so... yeah

Oh, look... I just realized it's you again, I should have suspected (<-expected) such nonsense from you.
Last edited by Velexia on Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Hail Eris!

polymer
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:14 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby polymer » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:52 am UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:This thread (and the comic that inspired it) kind of weird me out a little.
Everyone seems excited that they now have 'proof' that polls and statistical analysis are accurate, and are trying to wave it in the face of people who didn't trust statistics before. However, this isn't 'proof' at all, just one more data point for future statistical analysis.
Who are you trying to prove it to, anyway? Just because those people aren't won over by your rational arguments, doesn't mean they'll therefore be won over by your irrational ones.

Statistical analysis has not been validated by this case, just like it would not have been invalidated if Obama had lost.
If you think otherwise, then you are likely part of the reason statistics isn't/aren't well understood by the population in the first place.


If Obama had lost, then it certainly would have been a point against the models Wang, Linzer, and Silver devised. They wouldn't be very good or scientific if they couldn't be considered worse in some sense after being wrong. Still they weren't wrong, and this is in view of the fact that the political professionals were wrong. For me, as a math and physics major, I was curious as to the reasoning they may have used found this and wasn't scared away by the math. These were statisticians going against authorities of the field, won out, and I am capable of understanding their methods. I, personally, find this exciting.

Catprog
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Catprog » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:59 am UTC

Zylon wrote:
itaibn wrote:This comic isn't going to age well. Who would be able to tell what these lines mean after a few years?

I can barely tell what it means NOW. The text talks about comparing two things, but the graphic shows what appears to be a single point on a line. And then there's the unexplained dotted line.

I normally don't mind chart-based comics, but this one is really quite bad.


I think it the electoral collage votes.

forecast is what people were projecting.

dotted line is 50%

winampman
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:38 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby winampman » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:58 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:Looking back, I'm kind of sad McCain lost.

Yeah, I don't think McCain would have been so bad. But he was 72 in 2008, and if he died or became incapacitated, Sarah Palin would have become President of the largest economy and military in the world. Yikes.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby da Doctah » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:10 am UTC

Coyne wrote:Like in a football game: "Well folks, the score might be 46 to 3, but keep watching, because anything is possible..."

I don't know when it happened, but some baseball announcer (back in the days when games were all carried on the radio) was supposed to have observed "it's five and five, but the game's a lot closer than the score would indicate."

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Klear » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:54 am UTC

darkwombat wrote:
Cousj001 wrote:
J Thomas wrote: McCain has real expertise about torture.


I am now very glad McCain was never elected.


What a puzzling response. Um . . . you do understand that McCain was on the RECEIVING end of the torture, correct? In Vietnam? Serving his country and trying to survive as a POW? Being regularly beaten despite having a crushed shoulder, broken leg, and bayonet wounds?


That can still be an argument against him. I mean, that is some pretty extreme life experience, one that will definitely change a man. It is a known fact that long exposure to the horrors of war can make people insensitive and unable to cope with normal life. I'm not saying that McCain is a psycho or anything. I don't really know anything about him, since I don't live in the US. And, obviously, some people would consider psychic changes I described early as positive for a politician.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby addams » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:11 pm UTC

darkwombat wrote:
Cousj001 wrote:
J Thomas wrote: McCain has real expertise about torture.


I am now very glad McCain was never elected.


What a puzzling response. Um . . . you do understand that McCain was on the RECEIVING end of the torture, correct? In Vietnam? Serving his country and trying to survive as a POW? Being regularly beaten despite having a crushed shoulder, broken leg, and bayonet wounds?

P
O.K. Fine. McCain is a rich and powerful man. He does not have to live in the White House to act in the intrerest of a young POW. What has he ever done or said to help Bradley Manning?
O.K. He had a rough time way back in the day. Manning is having a rough time;NOW!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

Yoduh wrote:last 7 of 9 comics have been 1 panel, usually pretty small, with most looking like they took at most 2 minutes to make. either Randall is getting worn out or really getting into some kind of postmodern minimalism art style that I just don't get.



Generally when he does that, it means that there is a poster coming soon. (hoping so, anyways).


EDIT: just did a quick look back through. My assumption was false - I feel so ashamed.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Jackpot777 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:11 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:Semi Related:

The vindication of Nate Silver

In the weeks leading up to the election, prized New York Times poll guru Nate Silver and his FiveThirtyEight blog incurred the wrath of pundits and voters alike for suggesting the presidential race was perhaps not the horse-race many in the media and the Twittersphere were making it out to be. Silver, his critics charged, was confused and naive at best and a shill for the Obama campaign at worst.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was among his most vocals opponents, saying last week of Silver’s then-projection of a 73.6% chance of victory for Obama that “anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup now is such an ideologue [that] they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next ten days, because they’re jokes.” Silver was confident enough in his methodology that he challenged Scarborough to a $2,000 bet that Obama would win.

Meanwhile, at Politico, media reporter Dylan Byers wondered aloud how thoroughly a Romney victory would discredit Silver, suggesting such a scenario would cast him in history as a “one-term celebrity” after he initially rose to fame due to a reliably accurate reading of the 2008 presidential race.

As it turns out, the FiveThirtyEight projections for the 2012 election were almost dead on, leaving Business Insider editor-in-chief Henry Blodget with a pair of questions for those who came out in such strong opposition to Silver’s math: “Did you actually believe that Romney was going to win, or … were you just rooting and hoping for Romney despite the bad poll news?”

Read Blodget’s full post at Business Insider

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/06 ... e-updates/


The Denver Post collected maps from eight conservative predictors. Here are the electoral vote scores they predicted.

Image

That's not just wishful thinking. It's a fundamental disconnect from reality.

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby SerialTroll » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:00 pm UTC

Velexia wrote:
I suppose you would have to take into consideration the alt-text to truly understand what he is poking fun at, which you conveniently seem to have ignored for the sake of argument. You sir, are just pathetic. Stop posting just to troll me please.


More personal insults after I point out logic errors. this seems to be a pattern, but I will let it go. The alt text says nothing to support your assertion. The alt-text supports the fact that Randall is looking at how accurate the polling data is.

Velexia wrote:
My predictions were based upon my observations, sounds like science to me. Observe, form hypothesis, observe some more, form theory/hypothesis, etc.


No, science is not personal observations, your definition is way off. Republican friends that I know would have observations that support their "hypothesis". Your viewpoint and mine are not free from personal biases (for the record, I voted for Obama or at least against Romney). To truly model something as complex as a presidential election, you need to take into account biases, find ways to minimize them and then do a statistically valid survey. Your opinion or mine is not science. I am really sorry you don't see the difference between the two. To reiterate, opinion is not science.


Velexia wrote:
I'm not asking you to trust my gut feelings, and I'd call it my intuition... based upon my observations. Call it whatever you want, you were never asked to trust it. Anyway, this seems like a rather aimless thing you've brought up, except for your poor attempt to tell me that I am dumb for having an accurate intuition in regards to the elections...?


And now you are shifting my argument in what I perceive as an attempt to cover up logic fallacies. I never said you were "dumb". I do think you missed the point of the comic and illustrated the fallacy quite well. Every Democrat friend I have knew Obama was going to win. Every Republican friend I have knew Romney was going to win. Those friends' opinions are irrelevant. My opinion is irrelevant. Your opinion is irrelevant. The polling methodology is pretty solid and predicted this race would be a laugher and it was.

Velexia wrote:
Oh, look... I just realized it's you again, I should have suspected such nonsense from you.


Thanks for ending with another insult.

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Rotherian » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:21 pm UTC

I'm starting to think that maybe everything, within this thread, that isn't directly related to Comic 1131, should be moved to the Religious Wars forum. :roll:
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.
Image

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby SerialTroll » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:22 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
Image

That's not just wishful thinking. It's a fundamental disconnect from reality.


Quite correct and the reverse happens to Democrats when it is their candidate losing. This is a fundamental flaw in humans as a whole. We (I don't exempt myself from this phenomenon) see what we want to see. We have a selection bias (yes, I'm using that term loosely) when it comes to the facts we accept. We weight facts that agree with our opinion more heavily than those that disagree. We are slow to see the truth and slow to change our opinions about many issues. This type of thinking was very useful in a primitive society where cohesion was more important that truth. Today, that type of thinking is a hindrance.

Each of us needs to guard against finding for what we want to see and ignoring what we don't.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:The Denver Post collected maps from eight conservative predictors. Here are the electoral vote scores they predicted.

Image

That's not just wishful thinking. It's a fundamental disconnect from reality.


Didn't Bush usually get a few percent more votes than the polling implied? And a few percent more than the exit polls implied. There was room for a few percent in wiggle-room there. Not certain how many poor people would or could stand in line for hours, etc. It was pretty clear what the likely voters reported, but not as clear which of them were actually likely voters.

I imagined that Romney could possibly win. As it turned out, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia were all within 3% on the popular vote. If those three had gone the other way that would give Romney 266, almost enough. It wouldn't take a whole lot of wishful thinking to imagine that.

The way I figured it in a paranoid moment, maybe the voting machines are set to switch votes up to 3%, not too much to be believable. And maybe they saw that this time to win they'd have to do more than that. The closest choice was Colorado where Obama officially came out ahead by 4.7%. If 4.7% was too much to get away with, maybe better to just not do it at all this time round.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Velexia
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Velexia » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

SerialTroll wrote:
Velexia wrote:
I suppose you would have to take into consideration the alt-text to truly understand what he is poking fun at, which you conveniently seem to have ignored for the sake of argument. You sir, are just pathetic. Stop posting just to troll me please.


More personal insults after I point out logic errors. this seems to be a pattern, but I will let it go. The alt text says nothing to support your assertion. The alt-text supports the fact that Randall is looking at how accurate the polling data is.

Velexia wrote:
My predictions were based upon my observations, sounds like science to me. Observe, form hypothesis, observe some more, form theory/hypothesis, etc.


No, science is not personal observations, your definition is way off. Republican friends that I know would have observations that support their "hypothesis". Your viewpoint and mine are not free from personal biases (for the record, I voted for Obama or at least against Romney). To truly model something as complex as a presidential election, you need to take into account biases, find ways to minimize them and then do a statistically valid survey. Your opinion or mine is not science. I am really sorry you don't see the difference between the two. To reiterate, opinion is not science.


Velexia wrote:
I'm not asking you to trust my gut feelings, and I'd call it my intuition... based upon my observations. Call it whatever you want, you were never asked to trust it. Anyway, this seems like a rather aimless thing you've brought up, except for your poor attempt to tell me that I am dumb for having an accurate intuition in regards to the elections...?


And now you are shifting my argument in what I perceive as an attempt to cover up logic fallacies. I never said you were "dumb". I do think you missed the point of the comic and illustrated the fallacy quite well. Every Democrat friend I have knew Obama was going to win. Every Republican friend I have knew Romney was going to win. Those friends' opinions are irrelevant. My opinion is irrelevant. Your opinion is irrelevant. The polling methodology is pretty solid and predicted this race would be a laugher and it was.


Nice try at pretending to be aloof from the insults. Last thread I recall you began them with calling me stupid (in so many words)... and here you are doing it again, and then acting like you didn't. Let's also not forget the torrential downpour of "logical fallacies" you let loose, and now you're trying to play that card on me. I can't even begin to guess what you are referring to (I'd ask you to point out alleged fallacies, but, see the end of this post...).

The alt text mentions that the race was not "razor thin" or "too close to call" as "pundits" and "news anchors" claimed, but rather the difference between the projection of the outcome, and the actual outcome. It's there in simple, plain English. Even an idiot can figure it out. It's not cleverly hidden (aside from, well, being alt-text), or some secret. The picture itself is just showing that same thing, except graphically. The numbers were, last I looked the other night, 303 to 206. Pretty sure I didn't miss the point of the comic. It wasn't that complicated. Also, I am neither Democrat, nor Republican, and yet I predicted Obama would win. I was right; my opinion matters to me; and I didn't want either of them to win, but it's not like we had a real choice. The accuracy of the polls had jack shit to do with my prediction, or my opinion... so I don't even know why you mention that "the polling methodology [was] pretty solid and predicted this race would be a ...laugher... and it was."

How is one to do science, if they cannot believe their own eyes? Their own senses? "The best you can" is (of course) the right answer, but without your own senses, you have nothing. Doing science without using your own senses isn't science, it's dogma. So yes, science IS personal observations, it can only be personal observations; and the only definition for science I adhere to is "Science is the art of not fooling yourself."

SerialTroll wrote:
Velexia wrote:
Oh, look... I just realized it's you again, I should have suspected such nonsense from you.


Thanks for ending with another insult.


You reap what you sow.

If there is a way to ignore you on this forum, I'll find it, because you clearly have nothing of value to say. Heh, found it. Foe. Cute.
Hail Eris!

User avatar
Velexia
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Velexia » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

Zylon wrote:I can barely tell what it means NOW. The text talks about comparing two things, but the graphic shows what appears to be a single point on a line. And then there's the unexplained dotted line.

I normally don't mind chart-based comics, but this one is really quite bad.

Catprog wrote:I think it the electoral collage votes.

forecast is what people were projecting.

dotted line is 50%


Yeah, after watching the election all night long, seeing that comic was like seeing the election graphic all over again. 270 Electoral Votes needed to win (more than half, 538 total). Obama had 280 at one particular point, while Romney had 200. That was merely the prediction though, as California was assumed to be Obama's before it even started reporting, same with Hawaii. Turned out to be correct... although of note, Obama actually won Nevada, and the prediction said Nevada would go to Romney.

When Romney conceded defeat, and Obama gave his speech the numbers were 303 to 203. The comic probably shows what it looked like with Florida's 29 Electoral College votes attributed to Obama... 332 to 206, since there is not white space between them (either that or Florida attributed to Romney as 303 to 235).
Hail Eris!

alanbbent
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:46 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby alanbbent » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

SerialTroll wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
Image

That's not just wishful thinking. It's a fundamental disconnect from reality.


Quite correct and the reverse happens to Democrats when it is their candidate losing.


Exactly correct. Look up some of the democrats who were fundamentally disconnected from reality when predicting Bush/Kerry in 2004.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:24 pm UTC

Velexia wrote:How is one to do science, if they cannot believe their own eyes? Their own senses?
Are you serious?

We do science because we can't believe our own senses. If we could, we'd just look at the world and know how it works. We'd see that objects in motion tend to come to rest, and we'd know that's how the world works. We'd see the sun go around the world, and we'd know that's how the world works.

The realization that these naive observations can be wrong is why science was developed in the first place.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby addams » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:30 pm UTC

Well said. Thank you.

To be fair statictis is hard!

Crap. I took it as a Religion Class. Oh me yarm! It was so hard. Fun, too.

I had to get out of bed in the dark and go to the University. I was not the only one.

We were a group of people stunned into silence. We all made the same mistake, somehow.

There we were; A Beautiful Passionate woman told us, "The Mysteries: Define the question.."

It was so hard. Not many people get around to statistics. I only took thst one course. It was all dumbed down for our group.

Data points. Lots and lots of data points. Sublime. When the numbers...? Umm. I forgot. What do they do, again?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

exoren22
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby exoren22 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:36 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:But I believe he'd have done something about Gitmo, and civil liberties, and who could stop him? We'd have one solid thing to show for it.


You do know that Obama tried to close Gitmo and the Republicans passed a law saying they cannot move the prisoners from Gunatanamo, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

User avatar
Velexia
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Velexia » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:36 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Velexia wrote:How is one to do science, if they cannot believe their own eyes? Their own senses? ... (forgot something? -->) "The best you can" is (of course) the right answer, but without your own senses, you have nothing. Doing science without using your own senses isn't science, it's dogma. So yes, science IS personal observations, it can only be personal observations; and the only definition for science I adhere to is "Science is the art of not fooling yourself."
Are you serious?

We do science because we can't believe our own senses. If we could, we'd just look at the world and know how it works. We'd see that objects in motion tend to come to rest, and we'd know that's how the world works. We'd see the sun go around the world, and we'd know that's how the world works.

The realization that these naive observations can be wrong is why science was developed in the first place.


So... tell me, how was gravity discovered. How did we prove that gravity bends light? How did we determine that light has properties of both waves and particles, yet is neither? I could even use your examples. Crikey. yes I am serious. I didn't say "Naive observations." I said "observations, senses."

Hmm, things fall when they are let go. I wonder what does that. I wonder what causes it. I wonder how fast they fall. Let's make some observations. Things don't just fall, they accelerate. When thrown a distance X, they still fall at the same rate on the Y axis (or Z if we are using that). Funny, I used my eyes to make these observations, and my eyes are tied to one of my senses, sight.

So yes, I am serious.

...And don't bother trying to sidetrack with things like optical illusions. That would just be dumb. Yes, they trick the eyes. But assuming you are clever you can recognize the trick through further observation. Scientific method, and process at work, amazing. All done with observation and senses.

The only thing you need to concern yourself with are people who say "Just listen to me, because I know best." (<- Argument from authority, of all things).

This is what I say: "Does it make sense to you? If not, go figure it out for yourself."

So tell me, does it make sense now, have you comprehended my meaning? Science is done through observation, and observation is done by sensory organs. That's all I was saying.

Doubt me? Figure it out for yourself, prove me wrong, give me an example.
Hail Eris!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

We make observations, yes, but our eyes (and our brains' interpretation of what they see) are not especially reliable, nor is anyone's personal experience especially indicative of how reality really works.

Sure, watching something fall is a good start, but until science became a thing, that's all the farther anyone ever went. We are unreliable instruments for observing, measuring, and remembering things correctly, so we use science to try to mitigate those errors.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby addams » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

exoren22 wrote:
J Thomas wrote:But I believe he'd have done something about Gitmo, and civil liberties, and who could stop him? We'd have one solid thing to show for it.


You do know that Obama tried to close Gitmo and the Republicans passed a law saying they cannot move the prisoners from Gunatanamo, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html


The FOX tea party ruled the day.
The commander has both a right and a responsibility to:

Define The Fucking Mission.!

The people. What do the 'The People' want?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby SerialTroll » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:57 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We make observations, yes, but our eyes (and our brains' interpretation of what they see) are not especially reliable, nor is anyone's personal experience especially indicative of how reality really works.

Sure, watching something fall is a good start, but until science became a thing, that's all the farther anyone ever went. We are unreliable instruments for observing, measuring, and remembering things correctly, so we use science to try to mitigate those errors.


Thank you. Perhaps you will get farther with this than I was able to.

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby SerialTroll » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:03 pm UTC

addams wrote:
exoren22 wrote:
J Thomas wrote:But I believe he'd have done something about Gitmo, and civil liberties, and who could stop him? We'd have one solid thing to show for it.


You do know that Obama tried to close Gitmo and the Republicans passed a law saying they cannot move the prisoners from Gunatanamo, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html


The FOX tea party ruled the day.
The commander has both a right and a responsibility to:

Define The Fucking Mission.!

The people. What do the 'The People' want?


Let me answer this from two perspectives. As a citizen, I want Guantanamo closed. As a citizen, I also know I don't have all of the facts nor could I be told all the facts, so sometimes I have to place faith in my elected officials. As I typed the whole "faith in elected officials", my body gave an involuntary shudder as this is not my nature and I also know how much trouble this can get a country in.

Now, from the other perspective, the article you cite has the following text

"During the call, Obama did not press Holder to find a way to resurrect the federal prosecution of Mohammed and four co-defendants, according to senior administration officials familiar with the conversation. He did not object. Instead, he called it a pragmatic decision."

No, the prosecution case is not the same as closing Gitmo. But it is very much intertwined. Obama wanted a prisoner tried in Federal court. His adversaries wanted it tried in a military court. If Obama gets his way, he asserts authority over the prisoners of Gitmo. He gets rebuked and backs off quickly instead of fighting for principle.

So, Obama made a decision to not press the matter. He can honestly say "well I tried", and then throw Republicans under the bus. The fact is that he really didn't care all that much. My suspicion is there is much more going on with the folks incarcerated than we will know for the next 50 years. Obama as a candidate was not aware of all the facts, and once he was simply decided not to pursue it. But that is speculation on my part. What is not speculation is that Obama did the minimum required to say he attempted to close Gitmo. Not anything more.

For the record I voted for Obama because his opponent was worse, IMO.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby addams » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:21 pm UTC

O.K.!

This guy can call in Seal 6.

The Mission:

Get all US personal off the island of Cuba.

Transport all POW's from Cuba to Den Hagg.

POW Bradley Manning to Den Hagg; First.

He can wait his turn under the protection of Intrapol.

Why not?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:43 pm UTC

exoren22 wrote:
J Thomas wrote:But I believe he'd have done something about Gitmo, and civil liberties, and who could stop him? We'd have one solid thing to show for it.


You do know that Obama tried to close Gitmo and the Republicans passed a law saying they cannot move the prisoners from Gunatanamo, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html


I believe they could not have gotten away with doing that to McCain. This is forever untestable, barring access to statistics from other worlds if the Many Worlds hypothesis is true. It's a belief I cannot justify except on the basis of logical conclusions from data and hypotheses which may both be wrong, and which are themselves no longer testable. It probably isn't worth arguing about, but if you really want to I might give it a half-hearted attempt.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Someguy945
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:09 am UTC

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby Someguy945 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

Isn't this comic in error? It shows the "result" as being directly in the middle of the forecasted range.

However, as best I can tell, Obama won every single swing state. Didn't he perform at the absolute maximum of what was forecasted as possible?

If not, what states specifically did he miss that were considered within his range? Keep in mind that to put the "result" in the middle of the forecast, you'll need to come up with approximately the same number of electoral votes as all of the swing states he did win - about 100.

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby neremanth » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:42 pm UTC

Someguy945 wrote:Isn't this comic in error? It shows the "result" as being directly in the middle of the forecasted range.

However, as best I can tell, Obama won every single swing state. Didn't he perform at the absolute maximum of what was forecasted as possible?

If not, what states specifically did he miss that were considered within his range? Keep in mind that to put the "result" in the middle of the forecast, you'll need to come up with approximately the same number of electoral votes as all of the swing states he did win - about 100.

The comic shows the result as being 318 electoral votes, and the forecast as ranging from 282 to 348 electoral votes. (Those numbers are as accurate as I can determine them to be, which is not very given thickness of lines, difficulty of judging exact placement of cursor etc - so what Randall intended to depict could be a few away from that in either direction).

The comic doesn't actually say anything about it representing the correct results for Tuesday's election (though obviously the election is what the reference is to); and as the correct results are either 332 (probably) or 303 (possibly) for Obama, it can't possibly do so. So I take it as more of a general schema than a completely accurate chart - the point is that the actual result fell inside the inrerval of predictions made by those who had statistically analysed polling data, and fell far from the predictions made by those who just used gut instinct. I can't seem to find a 95% confidence interval posted anywhere for FiveThirtyEight's predicted number of electoral votes, but looking at their Electoral Vote Distribution graph (in the sidebar at the right), there seem to be three most likely scenarios for numbers of electoral votes won by Obama, with the smallest being around 300 electoral votes (perhaps the 303 he'd have without Florida?), the middle being around 330 (the 332 he'd have with Florida?), and the largest being at around 345. There's around a 50% probability that the result would be one of those three - so not a 95% interval, probably not even with the smaller probabilities of other numbers between those. And the actual result is closer to the upper end of that interval, while the bulk of the smaller probabilities lie beyond the lower end of that interval, which means that whatever the 95% interval is, the actual result indeed probably did not lie so near the middle of it as the depiction in the comic. Of course, besides not claiming to represent the actual data, the comic doesn't say what size of interval the forecast uses, so it might be 50% rather than 95%. Anyway, the fact that something close to 345 seats had a probability of 13% does indeed suggest that Obama missed out on one or more states that he had at least a reasonable chance of winning, but they need only have represented around 15 electoral votes. (If the 345 electoral votes scenario involves him losing one or more states that he won in reality, but winning one or more that he lost in reality, then of course those states that he lost in reality could represent more votes than that). I don't know which state(s) that would be though.

tl;dr: yes, the comic doesn't correctly portray the forecast and results of Tuesday's election, but it doesn't claim to. You are correct though that Obama must have lost some states that FiveThirtyEight, at any rate, gave him a reasonable chance of winning.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby dudiobugtron » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

neremanth wrote:The comic shows the result as being 318 electoral votes, and the forecast as ranging from 282 to 348 electoral votes. (Those numbers are as accurate as I can determine them to be, which is not very given thickness of lines, difficulty of judging exact placement of cursor etc - so what Randall intended to depict could be a few away from that in either direction).

The comic doesn't actually say anything about it representing the correct results for Tuesday's election (though obviously the election is what the reference is to); and as the correct results are either 332 (probably) or 303 (possibly) for Obama, it can't possibly do so.


Since 318 is pretty much in the middle of 332 and 303, I'd say he's either given half of Florida's vote to each candidate; or, more likely, given none of its vote to either candidate, and just made the total 32* smaller.

*edit: instead of 32, you should read the number of votes that Florida has instead. 29?
Last edited by dudiobugtron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1131: "Math"

Postby neremanth » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:41 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:Since 318 is pretty much in the middle of 332 and 303, I'd say he's either given half of Florida's vote to each candidate; or, more likely, given none of its vote to either candidate, and just made the total 32 smaller.

Good point (which had actually just occurred to me, but you beat me to it). So it was probably a bit unfair of me to say that the comic definitely doesn't accurately portray the result and forecast. I'd actually quite easily believe that a 95% interval did run from around 282 to 348, based on the graph I linked to. So, on second thoughts: Randall probably depicted the forecast and results accurately, with the result shown being the average between the electoral votes if Obama wins Florida and if he loses; thus the answer to Someguy945's question is "half of Florida, for a start (i.e. the depicted result only attributes half its electoral votes to him; though the chances of the eventual Florida result being for Obama are probably greater than 50%), and some other state or states, but I don't know which".

EDIT: after more investigation of the FiveThirtyEight blog, I have a better answer. They seem to have labelled 7 "competitive states" which I assume are their equivalent of swing states, and which may not be the same states that have been more generally labelled "swing states". They are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia, plus one congressional district in Nebraska. Of those, Obama won Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia (totalling 32 electoral votes) plus probably Florida (for a total of 61), while Romney won North Carolina and all of Nebraska's electoral votes. So that's fewer electoral votes from swing states for Obama than the 100 Someguy945 mentioned; and distributing half of Florida's electoral votes to Obama and half to Romney would give Obama 46.5 and Romney 29.5. Which wouldn't have Obama missing out on about the same number as he won, but as more of the competitive states had greater probabilities for Obama to win them than Romney, and more importantly as those represented a greater number of electoral votes (the only competitive states that were more likely for Romney were the ones he did in fact win), it's quite possible that the number of electoral votes x such that Obama had only a 2.5% chance of winning less than x electoral votes from the competitive states was both greater than 0 and larger than the equivalent number for Romney, which would mean that the 95% interval would not have to include all the electoral votes from the competitive states and would not have to be centred on half of them going to Obama and half going to Romney. Indeed, there are 76 electoral votes belonging to competitive states, and the interval depicted by Randall is approximately 66 electoral votes wide.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests