Slashdot Mirror
Don't Read My Lips
scitex writes "Two economists, Rasa Karapandza and Milos Bozovic, from University Pompu Fabra, Barcelona wrote a very interesting paper "You Can Fool Some People Sometimes..." They say that on all US Presidential Elections from 1960, when presidential debates were held, won the candidate that used less future tense in the debate. First debate was televised in 1960. They predict that these elections will be won by George W. Bush. They used a similar approach to analyze performance of US companies and found that companies that use less future tense in their annual reports perform better. Will this change the way companies write they reports and presidential candidates speak?"
...that they used the future tense to predict the outcome of the election.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Usually speaking the incumbent is going to talk about what they've done over the last couple years, and usually speaking, it's the incumbant's race to loose. That would account for the majority of the time that this happened, and the remainder is probably just coincidence.
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
You can't apply them to an individual case in an attempt to predict the future.
For example, the divorce rate in North America is very high. Pretend that it's an even 50% of marriages that end in divorce.
If you get married, you are not beholden to that statistic. Whether or not you get divorced cannot be predicted by the statistic. You do not have a 50/50 chance of breaking it off with your partner. The conditions may exist that cause a 50% divorce rate, but they may not apply to you, for whatever reason.
Predicting things from past results is interesting, and sometimes something to talk about, but they don't mean anything. Up until a couple of weeks ago, nobody had ever come back from being down 3 games to 0 in the World Series.
Why can't we redirect this kind of research energy towards applications that really have a benefit to mankind? How about predicting patterns which lead to cancer or destructive weather? Doesn't that seem like a more noble use of time and resources?
What's next for these guys? An analysis of peoples' choices for celluar ring tones as they relate to their propensity to purchase expensive designer salad croutons? Stouffers is waiting anxiously for your results.
People are more interested in what you've done rather than what you say you're going to do which may or may not happen. Everybody knows that campaign promises tend to be broken so what you say you're going to do is going to be taken with a grain of salt.
This campaign really is about what GW did and whether you like it or not. Not so much about what either candidate plans to do the next four years.
I invested in my current stock AVN because they've done interesting things in the past, their stock history is good and because they had interesting current projects. I paid $1.76 a share and it's now above $3 a share. Their current project at the time is now showing real promise and getting some attention.
Work Safe Porn
This story conjures up some clever side-conjectures, such as the notion that you can create statistical probability for virtually any scenario you desire if you keep researching until you find the data set that substantiates your claim. I wonder how many sets of criteria these guys churned through before they identified a pattern that jived with something significant? It sounds like a great gimmick to use to get grant money. 1. Pick an issue, formulate a premise, and then 2. start mining historical data until a substantive pattern arises which substantiates your claim. 3. Profit.
In this case, the future-tense references are kind of obvious if you ask me. People that talk about the future are often trying to detract attention from the present, and in those scenarios whether we're talking about a presidential election or a corporate report, tend to be reflective of whether or not the status quo is desireable or change is needed. Who needs a report to recognize this? If a company is doing badly, of course they're going to focus on the future. If a company is doing well, they'll be talking about their present circumstances. DUH.
As a result, I'm inclined to believe the outcome of this upcoming election is going to shatter these analysts predictions. In the business world, you can't really get away with lying about the present to the degree Bush has managed politically, and he's invented a new approach towards attempting to re-invent reality, which I'm not quite sure the majority of the public has bought, so his present tense propaganda is a completely different monster than any historical data these guys might have used for comparison.
I'd like to post this to suprnova but the upload page has timed out for me in the past 2 weeks. Maybe someone can try to put it on suprnova?
I ripped these older Presidential debates from various websites. It was a pain to get them. Dowload the torrent here or here or here
Low quality Real Video files ripped from streamings from the web.
If you have other debates, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, Presidential and/or VP, or higher-quality of the above, PLEASE POST!
is likely to give you many seemingly uncanny correlations between multiple events. The outcome of Washington Redskins home games prior to the election has predicted all the presidential elections since 1936. The sale of Halloween maks of the presidential candidates have predicted the elections since 1980. Does this bear any significance to this election? No. However, on the surface, this new prediction seems interesting. A person's word usage is a reflection of his character, education, and background. And there's been plenty of analysis of the word used by Bush and Kerry in this year's debates.
Yeah, well whatever. The thing that bugs me most about presidential candidates is that they always say "when I am president" and not "if I am elected president", even the ones who know they have no chance of winning (like Kucinich). I know their speech coaches or whoever tell them it makes them sound more assertive and confident and blah blah blah, but shut up already. NBC did this too, with their "MUST SEE THURSDAY" crap. It always sounded like a threat to me. Oh. Also, have they done an analysis of whether the person who repeats the same damn phrases over and over again the most is more likely to win? Because that seems to be the strategy of both camps.
This is about as meaningful as correlating election success with sports term performance, combined length of last names, weather, or astrology.
43 presidential elections (much less the 11 since 1960) are just not enough data points from which to extract any remotely significant analysis.
Now, more than ever, it's plainly obvious we need better voting technology. The group with the best effort underway is the Open Voting Consortium. We've mentioned their open source, Linux based, paper ballot voting system before. Give 'em a look at http://www.openvotingconsortium.org Thanks, Ed Kennedy