SXSW: Nate Silver Discusses Data Bias, the Strangeness of Fame

Nerval's Lobster writes "Nate Silver feels a little odd about his fame. That's not to say that he hasn't worked to get to his enviable position. Thanks to his savvy with predictive models, and the huge readership platform provided by The New York Times hosting his FiveThirtyEight blog, he managed to forecast the most recent presidential election results in all 50 states. His accuracy transformed him into a rare breed: a statistician with a household name. But onstage at this year's SXSW conference, Silver termed his fame 'strange' and 'out of proportion,' and described his model as little more than averaging the state and national polls, spiced a bit with his algorithms. "It bothered me that this was such a big deal," he told the audience. In politics, he added, most of the statistical analysis being conducted simply isn't good, which lets someone like him stand out; same as in baseball, where he made his start in predictive modeling. In fields with better analytics, the competition for someone like him would be much fiercer. He also talked about, despite a flood of data (and the tools to analyze it) in the modern world, we still face huge problems when it comes to actually understanding and using that data. 'You have a gap between what we think we know and what we really know,' he said. 'We tend to be oversensitive to random fluctuations in the data and mistake the fluctuations for real relationships.'"

Comments

silver is honest

[SlippyToad]

I think Silver stands out because unlike too many modern American politicians, he is interested in the facts, and not what bullshit he can use the data to support.

So it's not so much that he's done a fantastic job figuring all this out, it's just that he's fucking honest about the results unlike a certain perpetually-deluded political party I'm sick of naming.

Re:silver is honest

[JayBean]

I think Silver stands out because unlike too many modern American politicians, he is interested in the facts, and not what bullshit he can use the data to support.

So it's not so much that he's done a fantastic job figuring all this out, it's just that he's fucking honest about the results unlike a certain perpetually-deluded political party I'm sick of naming.

You are only thinking of one perpetually deluded political party? I have the opposite experience. I can't name a political party/organization that wasn't perpetually deluded.

Re:silver is honest

[pezpunk]

"both sides are equally bad/dishonest/wrong" is the biggest political cop-out ever. it's sad that such pat vaguaries aren't instantly embarassing to the faces they so often fly out of.

Re:silver is honest

[Hatta]

Both sides are not equally wrong, but that doesn't mean both sides are right. The Republicans are wrong 99% of the time. The Democrats are wrong 95% of the time. Why can't we field a candidate who's right even half the time?

If you vote for the party that's right most often, you're still voting for someone who is almost always wrong.

Re:silver is honest

[HornWumpus]

Deadlocking them produces the best feasible outcome.

The only time to worry is when ether of them controls executive/senate/house. Good thing whenever that happens both parties go to full on 100% wrong playing to their respective bases and they quickly lose enough control to restore deadlock.

Re:silver is honest

[nschubach]

I'm sure part of it is the fact that we like to "celebritise" people. He might have spoken out against something and people will latch on to it because it might also jibe with their train of thought. It's also part self gratification. If they can turn that person into a celebrity, they re-enforce their ideas through this man's "fame."

Re:silver is honest

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about political parties, it's about our disfunctional national media. They're so in love with the "close race" that they'll basically start making stuff up about how candidates are "really close" so just stay tuned to this story, etc. etc. If you look at the actual polling data, nothing about either the 2012 republican primary or general election was ever anywhere near as close as the media wanted you to think. It was refreshing to have Silver there to cut through the bullshit, both in 2012 and in 2008.

Re:silver is honest

[Hatta]

You can't deadlock them, you can only deadlock us. The Democrats and Republicans have a lot more in common than they have differences. The rich people who control the Democrats have much more in common with the rich people that control the Republicans than either have with any of us. The worst thing that could happen to the Democratic party is for the Greens to win some major elections.

If the Democrats are 95% wrong, and the Republicans are 99% wrong, that means that 90% of the time they are completely unopposed in doing the wrong thing. If you vote for either Democrats or Republicans, that's what you're voting for.

Re:silver is honest

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think Silver stands out because unlike too many modern American politicians, he is interested in the facts, and not what bullshit he can use the data to support.

So it's not so much that he's done a fantastic job figuring all this out, it's just that he's fucking honest about the results unlike a certain perpetually-deluded political party I'm sick of naming.

Arguably, it isn't really politicians who he differs from most meaningfully. Sure, there are a lot of politicians living in absurd contrafactual fantasy worlds; but that is(unfortunately) mostly a product of the fact that they are acting as representatives of people who do exactly the same thing... Pandering is a nonfactual enterprise in the sense that it may involve telling people the most insane lies, if that is what they want from you; but it is an eminently empirical exercise in the sense that you must constantly strive to better understand what people want to hear, so that you can better pander to them.

Where Silver, and his data-driven compatriots, really differ from the traditional is with the 'pundit' class. Pundits are selected pretty much entirely for their ability to tell emotionally compelling stories, with minimal reference to data, and provide marketable column inches and cable news minutes. The better ones, to their credit, are masterful in engaging audience emotions, weaving stories, and other affectively gripping flimflam. However, they tend to be somewhere between extraordinarily weak and overtly hostile to the idea that 'data' rather than 'feelings' can actually provide excellent information about the world, particularly if you use this crazy 'math' stuff that the nerds are always going on about.

Pundits make good TV(and, very conveniently, can offer viewers everything from lowbrow talk radio shouting matches to middlebrow 'public intellectual' posturing with little more than a change in tone and presence or absence of a thesaurus, unlike stat-heads who pretty fundamentally lean on nontrival math); but the kind of suck compared to statistical models.

Re:silver is honest

[HornWumpus]

Whenever ether side gets exec/senate/house it goes full on 'spend like drunken sailors'.

Neither side has the balls to do anything unpopular unless their is a crisis driving them. Crisis is the worst possible time to try to 'fix' things.

We've been on pure print money, sell the bonds to ourselves sense the US federal reserve took on the roll of 'buying' all 'leftover' bonds at auction. There is NO market rate for US treasuries because their is no functioning market. That process ends with inflation not default (although inflation will look a lot like default to the chumps that hold the bonds).

Re:silver is honest

[Hatta]

But they do. Warrantless wiretapping, eternal copyright, the war on drug users, the ever increasing militarization of the police, the for-profit prison industry, and a DOJ that cares more about Aaron Swartz than about John Corzine, etc, etc,. The Democrats and Republicans agree on most of the most harmful policies that afflict this country. And when they pretend to disagree (e.g. Rand Paul on domestic drone strikes), it's all for show.

Re:silver is honest

[hedwards]

The cause of the debt in the US, is that the GOP believes in spontaneously generating wealth. They book the projected increases in revenue as being real when balancing the budget, but fail to make any adjustments when that turns out to not be the case.

Ultimately, the Democrats at least understand that you need real revenue in order to balance the budget and you have to actually make real cuts to the DoD which alone could more than finance Obamacre with the waste in war spending without having to cut back on things that actually matter.

Re:silver is honest

[greenbird]

"both sides are equally bad/dishonest/wrong" is the biggest political cop-out ever.

I'm not sure how you can possible call that a cop out since it's 100% correct.

it's sad that such pat vaguaries aren't instantly embarassing to the faces they so often fly out of.

I'm assuming you meant vagaries but that doesn't make much sense. Not sure why you would consider it that erratic of a notion. It's been pretty consistent for quite a while now that the US government (either party) doesn't have the interest of the people as a priority and they're largely usurping the constitution to achieve what ever priorities they do have. Perhaps vagueness? Nothing vague about it. Just get your news from someplace other than the main stream press and it's more than clear. As a voter what other options do you have?

Re:silver is honest

[flonker]

Very interesting and insightful troll. I was tempted to mod you up, but I figured a reply would be preferred.

Originally I disagreed with your post, but upon attempting to reply, I found that I agree that "both sides are equally bad/dishonest/wrong" is a cop-out, but I disagree that it's embarrassing. It's only embarrassing if you aren't doing anything to back up your belief, and voting is a good start, but it isn't enough.

Re:silver is honest

[hedwards]

The DoD accounts for over $680bn as of 2010. The cost of Afghanistan and Iraq each have cost over $100bn a year and totaling to over $2.4tn for their duration.

There is no mandate that we start wars with other nations anywhere in the constitution. Nor does the constitution insist that we spend more money than the rest of the world combined on our military.

As for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, well, first off Medicaid is a state program, and second off, that's all covered under the "promote the general welfare" which is right next to "provide for the common defence" in the preamble to the constitution. So, it seems to me that programs that promote the general welfare are as constutionally mandated as providing for defense.

What's more, the inability of the conservatives to promote the general welfare of the people is itself a defense issue as there's dozens of people that aren't in the military for every individual that is in the military.

Re:silver is honest

[MightyMartian]

Mod up! This is exactly what happened last November. It wasn't the politicians who Nate revealed had no clothes, it was the pundits. While stories abound about Romney's supreme overconfidence, I think one could tell from the Republican rank and file that they knew months before the election that Obama was going to win a second term and there was little likelihood that they could gain a Senate majority.

But the pundits, now that was a group that was utterly stripped of any illusion of wisdom. They were proven to be absolute fools, little more than shouting ignoramuses. I hope that Silver and the other statisticians working on electoral prediction continue to hound this overpaid talking heads to extinction. In no small part, politics is as bad as it is because of the pundits.

Re:silver is honest

[SlippyToad]

Can't blame the lack of budget on deadlock. The D's had two years and never bothered.

Just so I can call you stupid, the budget is the responsibility of the House, which is controlled by the Republicans.

So, it is in their court.

I've noticed that you are extra-ignorant on these topics. And you're offtopic too. It's almost like you have an axe to grind and could give a flying fuck about factual reality.

Or, you're stupid. Hard to tell.

Re:silver is honest

[SlippyToad]

Just to pile on, when you say "both sides do it," you are implicitly refusing to deal with the actual topic at hand, which is for example "budget" or "national security," or whatever.

So when you do that, you are basically throwing up your hands and saying "who can know such things?"

It's fucking lazy. Very, fucking lazy. I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic. You obviously are.

Re:silver is honest

[toadlife]

Between Ted Kennedy dying and the Coleman/Franken Senate race recount, the D's actually had a filibuster proof majority for ~24 working days during those two year. The rest of the time, they required Republican vote(s) to get anything through. With what little time they had, they chose to pursue health care reform instead of passing a new budget.

That aside, they *did* pass a budget. They passed a continuing resolution which extended Bush's last budget; so we've been operating on George W. Bush's last budget since FY2009.

Re:silver is honest

[SydShamino]

Two years is bullshit. 17 weeks of Senate control, from Al Franken to Ted Kennedy. The Senate stopped the House during the rest of those two years you're bantering on about.

Most of that time was spent on health care, and division within the Democratic party (who know, the healthy kind of debate and compromise we need more of) kept them from ramming through their entire agenda in the same way you think that a party would when they have a supermajority. (Only one part moves in sufficient lock step to try that, which is one of the problems with that party.)

Re:silver is honest

[HornWumpus]

A continuing resolution is not a budget. Especially if they are spending entirely differently.

Re:silver is honest

[The_R_Meister]

Just to pile on, when you say "both sides do it," you are implicitly refusing to deal with the actual topic at hand, which is for example "budget" or "national security," or whatever.

So when you do that, you are basically throwing up your hands and saying "who can know such things?"

It's fucking lazy. Very, fucking lazy. I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic. You obviously are.

A few very big assumptions in there - very lazy of you. Shouldn't you have at least researched greenbird's personal record on researching the actual topics at hand? Maybe he deals with them explicitly instead of implicitly like you do ... Saying that both parties are equally wrong is just a blanket level statement, what you do with it is up to you. I'd say judging a politician by his party is the lazy approach.You're basically throwing your hands up and saying "I don't have time to judge the individual, so I'll go by party".

Re:silver is honest

[WaywardGeek]

Thank God somebody finally decided to talk about TFA! Even though the poster didn't name the party that pisses him off, it's obvious what he meant, and that sent all the flamers over the edge. I can't recall such a long sequence of useless posts on slashdot, and that's really saying something!

Yes, Nate Silver called out the Pundits. Even I could have done that. He went further, and pointed out a significant discrepancy between the national and state polls. He made a gut call and pointed the finger of bias at the national polls, and based his model mostly on the state polls. That he was right isn't what impressed me. Most of the Democratic pundits were already screaming about national poll bias. What impressed me was that he had the guts to point that finger right at the most respected name in polling, Gallup. He totally put his reputation and career on the line. He explained in clear detail why Gallup was wrong, and by how much. He predicted how much Gallup would be wrong, and explained how Gallup would spin their errors as being due to Hurricane Sandy, all before Gallup's final errors. Faced with this onslaught from Nate, Gallup, the most experienced polling organization in the world, following the script Nate predicted point by point. Gallup is about as useful as used toilet paper. They're frankly stupid morons. So, thanks for letting us know, Nate!

Since when did South by Southwest become..

[areusche]

Since when did South by Southwest become a tech conference? I find it interesting that all of these technology gurus are talking at a music festival. What's next, Ballmer speaking at Bonnaro?

Re:Since when did South by Southwest become..

[Antipater]

http://sxsw.com/interactive

According to Wikipedia, "SXSW Film and Multimedia", now split in separate "SXSW Film" and "SXSW Interactive" started in 1994, seven years after the music festival did.

Science is rare

[Hatta]

Very, very little in this world actually happens because the data suggests its a good idea. People make decisions based on their comfort level, tradition, who their friends are, etc. Suggesting that we should listen to the data disempowers the powerful. It's 2013, and the principles of evidence based medicine were only developed 20 years ago, and are still not widely used in practice. We're going to have to wait centuries before evidence based public policy becomes the norm.

Re:Science is rare

[Hatta]

The thing is you can have mountains of data (which we do). The problem is asking the right questions.

The problem is that those in power dont want to ask the right questions because it will force their hand. e.g., we have mountains of data that show that Cannabis is less harmful than most over the counter drugs. Certainly less harmful than alcohol. So we 75,000 of us get together and ask the President a question. "Why can't we regulate Cannabis like alcohol?"

His response amounted to "Cannabis is a dangerous drug", and he never mentioned alcohol once. He didn't even bother dismissing the question, he failed to acknowledge its existence.

Why would he do that? It's obvious, if he actually considered the question, he would have been unable to come up with an answer that would be consistent with our current policy. He knows that, and he doesn't care that the policy is demonstrably harmful.

That, my friends, is the face of evil.

Re:Science is rare

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Evidence based public policy decision making is a recent innovation understood by a very small minority of the populace. Doing what will get you liked by people like you has been baked into our genes for millions of years.

Optimism

[sjbe]

We're going to have to wait centuries before evidence based public policy becomes the norm.

I think you are being optimistic. Very optimistic.

Deadlocked into debt

[sjbe]

Deadlocking them produces the best feasible outcome.

Except on the periodic occasion when we need them to do actually something. You know, like not endlessly raise the national debt because they want to promise everything but don't want to have to tell the voters they have to actually pay for it someday.

Re:Deadlocked into debt

[HornWumpus]

Whenever they 'do something' they make that worse.

The Ds think they don't have a spending problem. The Rs think only the Ds have a spending problem.

That said: In a global 'economic war' deficit spending is the counter to currency pegs. The problem is the end game of that, leave both China and their customers fucked. That and exchange rate shifts that should be between the Yahn and all western currencies appear between the yahn/dollar and other western currencies.

Analytics

[Anonymous Coward]

Silver's rise to prominence most closely mirrors Google's. Find a good model and apply it to an area that has been underserved.

When they write the book on the history of the Information Age, it will be about how we learned to leverage analytics for the common good.

Re:Analytics

[Hatta]

When they write the book on the history of the Information Age, it will be about how we learned to leverage analytics for the common good.

Why do you assume it will be for the common good? Those most able to leverage analytics(the rich, powerful, and well connected) have the most incentive to use them for their own personal gain, regardless of what the common good is.

"Right" is frequently just opinion

[sjbe]

Both sides are not equally wrong, but that doesn't mean both sides are right. The Republicans are wrong 99% of the time. The Democrats are wrong 95% of the time. Why can't we field a candidate who's right even half the time?

Because "right" is for better or worse often a matter of opinion. There is no single objectively right answer for many questions. Think abortion or gun control. Lots of opinions on both sides but there is never going to be a single "right" answer. At best there might be a consensus but probably never a unanimous one. Even for questions where a single objectively right answer may theoretically exist, there often is insufficient data to figure out what that answer is. (for example what is the optimal tax rate)

not evil...humanity

[bussdriver]

Some people think a tiger who kills a human is evil; it is in it's nature to kill it's food. The human animal is still just an animal and does natural things lacking any conscious rational but unlike the tiger, it has the brain power to rationalize its instincts into an illusion of free thinking and therefore believe it is unlike other animals. This is extremely hard for the human ego to accept.

Politicians succeed by tribalism; not reason and not logic. To some degree they must reflect the populace; even a dictator has limits and must bend to expectations.

What is evil is how to make generally good people collectively manifest "evil" deeds. A mental hack which makes somebody do antisocial things is evil - I use the word make because of the above statement. Free will is not as strong as people BELIEVE it is. Now if you don't have your parent's religion, politics, tastes... maybe then you are in a position to argue otherwise.

Re:not evil...humanity

[Hatta]

What is evil is how to make generally good people collectively manifest "evil" deeds.

Which is exactly what I described in the above post. The War on Drug Users is the perfect example what Thoreau meant when he said "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."

I think we're both right. It is part of human nature, but it's also evil. Jealousy and greed are also part of human nature, but they still make us do evil things. Good people learn to control those urges. Politicians apparently never learned to control theirs.

We are part of the problem.

[sjbe]

The Ds think they don't have a spending problem. The Rs think only the Ds have a spending problem.

It's not solely a problem with either the Ds or the Rs really. It's a problem with the voters who elect them. Their disagreements usually are just a symptom of the problem. WE are the ones who demand all these services (medicare, defense, etc) but WE are the ones who vote people out of office who dare to suggest it will cost something and that we might have to pay taxes for them. WE are the the ones who refuse to acknowledge that we might not actually need 11 aircraft carrier battle groups or perhaps we might be ok with a bit less Medicare. Our leaders are to an alarming degree a reflection of our own dysfunction. It's easy to blame them but collectively if we want to point fingers the mirror is a good place to start.

Valid Criticism

[Capt.Albatross]

Cathy O'Neil (Mathbabe) offers a well-argued criticism of Nate Silver when he stepped beyond his area of expertise in his recent, popular book, '"The Signal and the Noise: Why so many predictions fail – but some don’t"

http://mathbabe.org/2012/12/20/nate-silver-confuses-cause-and-effect-ends-up-defending-corruption/

According to Ms. O'Neil, Mr. Silver fails to recognize situations where bad models are deliberately used to game that system.

Mitt? Is that you?

[sjbe]

It became broken when FDR fucked the constitution and started transfer payments.

Ummm, sure... whatever. I'll just nod my head and pretend that makes any sense at all even though it doesn't.

Now that a majority of voters don't pay significant taxes we are permanently fucked.

Where did you get a ridiculous notion like that? Your name isn't Mitt Romney by an chance is it? Most people pay quite a lot of taxes. Not enough to cover Social Security, Defense and Medicare but they pay about 2-3 Trillion per year to the federal government alone. Most pay some combination of Federal Income tax, FICA (Social security + Medicare), State income tax, property tax, vehicle registration, gas tax, and quite a few more.