Let's make America smart again

[The Big Dog]

Nate Silver looks at education levels in county level election data.



At the other end of the scale, in the counties with the lowest percentage of college graduates:




Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump

nate silver is an idiot. Correcting for one factor?

You kidding me?

Say I bet you I could easily EASILY identify a segment of the population that is both least educated and overwhelmingly voted for the LOSER.

C'mon skeptics who wants to have a go????

Get skeptical

 

[theprestige]

This is one reason the Politifact numbers are more than accurate enough. They rate things that they are asked to rate, and things their researchers find important.

And that would be the problem with deriving any statistical conclusion from their findings. Even Politifact doesn't claim what is being attempted in this thread.

 

[tyr_13]

I didn't say "random" anywhere in my post. In fact we've already discussed taking statements from interviews and debates only.

What controls were you thinking?

Sure, but it's hard to judge magnitude without a huge part of subjectivity. Better to take a large number of statements from the aforementioned places and hope that on average the "magnitude" is equivalent.

I'm highly skeptical of that hope. It seems to me that you'd introduce more error by hoping the statements average out than by letting some value judgements stay in.

I know but if we want to demonstrate it objectively we need more than our impressions.

But we have more than our impressions already. Fact checking his lies shows them to be lies. Comparing them to Hillary's lies is going to be problematic and have some substantial error bars, but even with those it's not exactly close.

The man actually said Clinton's immigration policy could triple the population of the US in a week, that Obama founded ISIS, and that black communities have never been in worse shape. These are massive and crazy lies. Nothing Clinton has said comes close to these three. The worst I can think of is saying she broke no email rules and the sniper thing.

 

[tyr_13]

And that would be the problem with deriving any statistical conclusion from their findings. Even Politifact doesn't claim what is being attempted in this thread.

As I said, it's impossible to remove some element of value judgement from an analysis of who is the biggest liar. It's therefore not going to strictly be a statistical conclusion.

 

[theprestige]

I know but if we want to demonstrate it objectively we need more than our impressions.

Who's "we"? It seems like some of the people you're addressing don't want that at all.

Also, why bother? If you were to simply pronounce that Trump is the lyingest liar who ever lied, it'd get the same reception as any of the ten thousand other anti-Trump sentiments expressed daily on this forum.

The only reason you're in this mess right now is because someone tried to turn an uncontrolled sample into a statistical claim. Something even the sampler doesn't attempt. Seems like a strange hill to die on.

 

[theprestige]

But we have more than our impressions already. Fact checking his lies shows them to be lies.

Fact checking some of his statements shows them to be lies, you mean.

Comparing them to Hillary's lies is going to be problematic and have some substantial error bars, but even with those it's not exactly close.

I think the source of the contention is that people keep trying to equivocate on this point. When you say "it's not exactly close", are you basing your conclusion on data, or on impression?

As I said, it's impossible to remove some element of value judgement from an analysis of who is the biggest liar. It's therefore not going to strictly be a statistical conclusion.

I wholeheartedly agree. And you're not even the first person in this thread to argue this. Let's see if you're the first person to argue this without getting excoriated and personally attacked for it.

 

[Ziggurat]

As I said, it's impossible to remove some element of value judgement from an analysis of who is the biggest liar. It's therefore not going to strictly be a statistical conclusion.

The Politifact citation was a strictly statistical conclusion.

 

[tyr_13]

Fact checking some of his statements shows them to be lies, you mean.

Yes, some. It's impossible to even know all of what a person says, let alone fact check all the statements. But 'some' doesn't mean the picture isn't complete enough to draw some conclusions. Those 'some' statements aren't exactly non-representative of the claims he's made politically. While a case might be made for a sub-set of the set not being representative, there really doesn't seem to be much of a way to slice up the set to come out with him 'ahead' as far as honesty goes.

I think the source of the contention is that people keep trying to equivocate on this point. When you say "it's not exactly close", are you basing your conclusion on data, or on impression?

Both in a fashion. How important and extreme the lie is, is a value judgement. That they're lies and that they are well out of line with reality is much less so. How egregious Hillary's lies tended to be is also a value judgement, but that doesn't mean it's without support.

It isn't just opinion, even if opinion does inevitably enter into it.

I wholeheartedly agree. And you're not even the first person in this thread to argue this. Let's see if you're the first person to argue this without getting excoriated and personally attacked for it.

I believe the objection is to the insinuation that somehow the opposing views are therefore equally supported, or that it's all a value judgement. From the best evidence we have, Trump is far and away the biggest liar. That's not to say value judgement doesn't ever enter into it, but that the parts that are value judgements doesn't invalidate this conclusion in any meaningful way, nor is it support for the opposite contention.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, some. It's impossible to even know all of what a person says, let alone fact check all the statements. But 'some' doesn't mean the picture isn't complete enough to draw some conclusions. Those 'some' statements aren't exactly non-representative of the claims he's made politically. While a case might be made for a sub-set of the set not being representative, there really doesn't seem to be much of a way to slice up the set to come out with him 'ahead' as far as honesty goes.




Both in a fashion. How important and extreme the lie is, is a value judgement. That they're lies and that they are well out of line with reality is much less so. How egregious Hillary's lies tended to be is also a value judgement, but that doesn't mean it's without support.

It isn't just opinion, even if opinion does inevitably enter into it.





I believe the objection is to the insinuation that somehow the opposing views are therefore equally supported, or that it's all a value judgement. From the best evidence we have, Trump is far and away the biggest liar. That's not to say value judgement doesn't ever enter into it, but that the parts that are value judgements doesn't invalidate this conclusion in any meaningful way, nor is it support for the opposite contention.

In your opinion, what's the best evidence we have?

 

[Noztradamus]

I did not have to perform any calculations about accuracy to see that a mountain is larger than a teacup. I similarly don't need to them to compare the mountain of Trump's lies to the teacup-full of Clinton's.

Well if they are used as containers: What is the comparative internal void space of the mountain compared to that of the teacup?

 

[tyr_13]

In your opinion, what's the best evidence we have?

The fact checking of Trump's and Hillary's statements from various sources, including Politifact, as well as reporting and direct observation.

One could say that it's all biased, but that's more likely to lead one to whatever conclusion one wanted in the first place. It's also tempting to dismiss the amount of lies Hillary has told because of her long political career, or believe that Trump using Twitter so much just makes his lying more obvious, not just providing a platform for his statements which are so very often lies (or simply 'crazy' wrong). But either of those just seem like hand-waving and weak deflection.

Again, Trump really has said some lies which are frankly crazy, then doubled down on them, or pretended he didn't say things that are on video. Trump lies so often and so brazenly that it's like gaslighting as public relations. He's not the only public figure that does that, but damn if he isn't the clearest example of it.

 

[Belz...]

What controls were you thinking?

In this case I can only think of taking _all_ statements in those interviews and debates to avoid a biased selection. I don't know how else you'd do it.

I'm highly skeptical of that hope. It seems to me that you'd introduce more error by hoping the statements average out than by letting some value judgements stay in.

Why?

The man actually said Clinton's immigration policy could triple the population of the US in a week, that Obama founded ISIS, and that black communities have never been in worse shape. These are massive and crazy lies.

Preaching to the choir here, Tyr. I'm trying to stick with something both sides can agree on.

 

[Belz...]

Who's "we"? It seems like some of the people you're addressing don't want that at all.

We was me and the person I was addressing. Sheesh.

Also, why bother?

We were discussing who was the candidate that lied the most, remember?

The only reason you're in this mess right now is because someone tried to turn an uncontrolled sample into a statistical claim.

I don't see it as a mess. What was the point of your post, anyway, if you're not interested?

 

[wareyin]

You're assuming your conclusion, wareyin. Here's the thing: you have a number of statements by two people, and want to determine who's the biggest liar. You can't assume that one's the mountain and the other the teacup without first checking a large, well-controlled sample of these statements. Otherwise you're even more open to bias.

We* are able to make a correct comparison between two things without complete information all the time. For instance, I can confidently say that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson can deadlift more than Hillary Clinton, even without having any idea how much Clinton can deadlift. I can similarly say that a turkey sandwich is more healthy than a dog-poo sandwich, even without knowing the exact vitamins, minerals, and caloric content of the dog-poo sandwich.

This 'throwing up our hands, gosh, without a perfect sample we'll never be able to tell,' affectation is a disingenuous attempt at creating or maintaining a false equivalency.



*well, most people are, but I don't want to make assumptions about everyone. Maybe there are those here who really have no idea which person lifts more, or which sandwich is healthier, or which among a mountain or teacup is larger without complete, precise, accurate measurements and ratios. I rather doubt it, though.

 

[Belz...]

We* are able to make a correct comparison between two things without complete information all the time. For instance, I can confidently say that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson can deadlift more than Hillary Clinton, even without having any idea how much Clinton can deadlift. I can similarly say that a turkey sandwich is more healthy than a dog-poo sandwich, even without knowing the exact vitamins, minerals, and caloric content of the dog-poo sandwich.

I'm not disputing that. But as you can see it takes more than that to convince people of different political dispositions, and who in this case require more solid evidence which they wouldn't require in other cases (say, completely at random, whether Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist). You're not going to convince them by repeating the things we're already convinced of, and if you're not willing to use a standard of evidence which they have said would be acceptable, then we're just wasting energy.

 

[wareyin]

I'm not disputing that. But as you can see it takes more than that to convince people of different political dispositions, and who in this case require more solid evidence which they wouldn't require in other cases (say, completely at random, whether Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist).

You're not going to convince them by repeating the things we're already convinced of, and if you're not willing to use a standard of evidence which they have said would be acceptable, then we're just wasting energy.

Of course we're wasting energy. It's what we do here. Getting one's jollies by pointing out partisan double standards is the best one can hope for once said double standards are doubled down on.

 

[Belz...]

Of course we're wasting energy. It's what we do here. Getting one's jollies by pointing out partisan double standards is the best one can hope for once said double standards are doubled down on.

Yeah, well, if we can try to find common grounds at the same time, why not try?

 

[John Jones]

Why are those the only two choices? Why not: "Trump was a deeply flawed candidate and I'm not ok with his rhetoric, but at least with him things will move towards the outcomes I want. He won't actually be able to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it but he can make improvements to border security. He can't actually round up all the illegals in America and deport them but he can strengthen our immigration policy. He may not be able to repeal and replace ACA but he isn't going to move toward single-payer either. In any case, a vote for Clinton ensures that the country will move toward outcomes I don't want, such as single-payer, lax immigration, etc."

Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote anyway.

Walls of text make Hulk angry!

 

[Trakar]

Why are those the only two choices? Why not: "Trump was a deeply flawed candidate and I'm not ok with his rhetoric, but at least with him things will move towards the outcomes I want. He won't actually be able to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it but he can make improvements to border security. He can't actually round up all the illegals in America and deport them but he can strengthen our immigration policy. He may not be able to repeal and replace ACA but he isn't going to move toward single-payer either. In any case, a vote for Clinton ensures that the country will move toward outcomes I don't want, such as single-payer, lax immigration, etc."

Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote anyway.

You do realize that Trump generally favors, and for the poorest Americans, prefers, single-payer health coverage,...don't you?

 

[Belz...]

You do realize that Trump generally favors, and for the poorest Americans, prefers, single-payer health coverage,...don't you?

With a GOP congress? At best, nothing changes, I think. At worst, they introduce and pass legislation repealing the ACA.