tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post5517860306993992276..comments2024-03-19T02:31:02.140-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Obama defeat excuses are currently being auditionedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38042523006627510482012-10-30T13:44:12.347-07:002012-10-30T13:44:12.347-07:00The problem here is similar to those papers where ...<i>The problem here is similar to those papers where they combine the results of a bunch of other papers to try to conclude something more than what the older papers could conclude (called meta-analyses)--there are a lot of ways to combine the results of the different polls, a lot of ways to decide which polls are worth including, what influence on my estimate of OH voters I should take from new polling results from PA or the whole country, etc.</i><br /><br />When you're always weighting the "right" polls a certain way, and the "wrong" polls another, and keeping push-pollers like PPP, and garbage "polls" like the RAND study in your analysis, you've got more than a minor problem. When you won't really address the common-sense criticisms being leveled at your model, that's not very good either.<br /><br />But Silver isn't the problem, so much as it is his cult, which has raised him on its shoulders.<br /><br /><i>So you can end up with a whole lot of choices in your model parameters, whose consequences even you don't fully understand, and which give you plausible-looking predictions. There is a tradeoff here--if you want to make the best possible prediction, you should incorporate all that data into your prediction somehow. But doing so leaves you vulnerable to either cooking the parameter choices to give a desired prediction, or simply having an overly complex model that will give really dumb predictions in some circumstances, but that was highly tuned to fit some historical data. That's one reason to want to see models like the one at electoral-vote.com (I linked to it earlier) that bases its state predictions on a really simple model (take the most recent poll, or average them if there are multiple polls within a week of each other).</i><br /> <br />I'll take a transparent & complex model over an opaque and simple one, but yeah, I'm not going to sit there and trust a model that I can't even understand.<br /><br /><i>I don't know who will win this election. Frankly, I don't much care--the differences on issues I care about are hard to predict, but seem likely to me to be quite small. Like watching Saddam fight the Ayatollahs, or Assad fight the local opposition over who will be on top and whose ethnic group will be massacred, there arent any good guys to root for here.</i><br /><br />I suspect I care a lot less about the outcome than Silver does. I'll have forgotten about the whole thing a week later. Yes, I would like to see Romney win, but you don't see me investing myself in the outcome the way Republicans and Dems are. They think this thing's about the fate of America, whereas I think the fork's just waiting to be stuck in her either way.<br /><br />I really would like to see 0bama go, though, for a couple of reasons.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88245141710395607682012-10-30T11:23:24.390-07:002012-10-30T11:23:24.390-07:00Svigor:
The way I understand it, events that shif...Svigor:<br /><br />The way I understand it, events that shift the voters' opinions in a few states usually shift them in other states, too. So if you see a nationwide shift of a percentage point toward Romney, it's reasonable to expect that all the battleground states are going to see a comparable shift, even if you don't have polls from Ohio showing that shift yet. Most places, a 1% shift doesn't matter--Obama will win California and Romney will win Texas either way. But for Ohio and Virginia and Florida and Nevada, that 1% shift can make a real difference, and that will change the electoral votes. <br /><br />The problem here is similar to those papers where they combine the results of a bunch of other papers to try to conclude something more than what the older papers could conclude (called meta-analyses)--there are a lot of ways to combine the results of the different polls, a lot of ways to decide which polls are worth including, what influence on my estimate of OH voters I should take from new polling results from PA or the whole country, etc. So you can end up with a whole lot of choices in your model parameters, whose consequences even you don't fully understand, and which give you plausible-looking predictions. There is a tradeoff here--if you want to make the best possible prediction, you should incorporate all that data into your prediction somehow. But doing so leaves you vulnerable to either cooking the parameter choices to give a desired prediction, or simply having an overly complex model that will give really dumb predictions in some circumstances, but that was highly tuned to fit some historical data. That's one reason to want to see models like the one at electoral-vote.com (I linked to it earlier) that bases its state predictions on a really simple model (take the most recent poll, or average them if there are multiple polls within a week of each other). <br /><br />The other problem, I think, is controlling your own biases. You want to see a particular outcome, and expect to see it. Nate Silver presumably wants and expects the opposite. It is uncomfortably easy to fool yourself into finding reasons to reject models that predict what you don't want to see. That's as true of Republicans or Democrats looking at polls as it is of liberals looking at IQ differences between blacks and whites. IQ testing is also not an exact science, the definition of race is inherently a little fuzzy, there are partisan biases among the major figures in the science, etc.--and yet, it sure looks to me like most liberals who reject IQ scores and racial IQ differences out of hand are using those reasons for support, rather than illumination. That's always a danger to guard against--looking for reasons you are right instead of reasons you are wrong. <br /><br />I don't know who will win this election. Frankly, I don't much care--the differences on issues I care about are hard to predict, but seem likely to me to be quite small. Like watching Saddam fight the Ayatollahs, or Assad fight the local opposition over who will be on top and whose ethnic group will be massacred, there arent any good guys to root for here.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25694552757673549002012-10-29T17:15:04.474-07:002012-10-29T17:15:04.474-07:00Nate Silver defeat excuses are currently being aud...Nate Silver defeat excuses are currently being auditioned, too:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html" rel="nofollow">Nate Silver: One-term celebrity?</a><br /><br /><i>"We can debate how much of a favorite Obama is; Romney, clearly, could still win. But this is not wizardry or rocket science," Silver told POLITICO. "All you have to do is take an average, and count to 270. It's a pretty simple set of facts. I'm sorry that Joe is math-challenged."</i><br /><br />Nate, tell that to your Rube Goldberg model with the "magic happens here" right around your "weighting" of polls. You're the one who can't use simple math; that's why your model uses "magic happens here," and complex math that none of your acolytes even understands.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38179284525601977452012-10-29T16:27:54.170-07:002012-10-29T16:27:54.170-07:00"[The University of Chicago] can get just abo...<em>"[The University of Chicago] can get just about anyone, just about any black anyone to teach there.<br /><br />"And they chose this guy. I mean how badly can he suck?"</em><br /><br />The USA could get just about anyone to accept the job of president. And the voters chose this guy. How badly can he suck?<br /><br />Pretty badly, it turns out.Cail Corishevnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59426695540702985982012-10-29T15:39:50.933-07:002012-10-29T15:39:50.933-07:00"My surmise is that while Thomas does come do...<b>"My surmise is that while Thomas does come down on the right side, he is lead there by the other Justices. Basically, you can't have an entire court made up of Thomas types."</b><br /><br />OK but..we don't have a SCOTUS made up of "Thomas types." We have leaders and we have followers. Thomas is no slouch for reliably choosing the right justice to follow. A Court comprised of one Scalia and 8 Thomases would be a fine Court indeed.Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15593309169780135932012-10-29T15:09:21.009-07:002012-10-29T15:09:21.009-07:00"Jump to conclusions, much? You don't kno..."Jump to conclusions, much? You don't know why I'm here, what I do. I may be a Korean spy for all you know. Maybe, I see myself as a pioneer. Maybe I see myself as a conciliator. Etc."<br /><br />Good, Hacienda-San; you have now felt the pain involved with one having his reputation and good name besmirched by hurtful and careless insults such as "race-traitor." Please keep this in mind the next time you call someone names!<br /><br />This reminds me of a great Seon/Zen story:<br /><br />A wealthy and powerful king encounters a poor, pauper monk on the road, feeling his obvious sense of superiority he gathers his soldiers close and says "watch me tounge tie this old man."<br /><br />"Hey old man, if you are a Seon monk explain to me the difference between heaven and hell."<br /><br />The old monk straightens his back, looks and the king, and replies, calmly; "I would love to, but in my years as a monk I have become quite accomplished at discerning the mental abilities of men at first glance; I do not believe you to have the mental facility to understand such a profound concept."<br /><br />The King turns Red! He unsheathes his sword and says; "YOU PATHETIC BEGGAR INFIDEL, I COULD EASILY SMITE YOU FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF MY MEN RIGHT NOW! I COULD LOP OF YOUR HEAD FOR CALLING ME STUPID WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT WILL PREVENT ME FROM TAKING YOUR LIFE?!?!?!"<br /><br />The hold man looks and him calm, smiles and says; "That your Excellency, is Hell."<br /><br />The King realizes what just happens, places his sword back in the scabbard and says starts smiling at his men which leads all to start laughing. At which point the old man says;<br /><br />"And that, your Excellency, is heaven!"Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63509116787431383192012-10-29T15:08:02.382-07:002012-10-29T15:08:02.382-07:00This will have real consequences though. The more ...<i>This will have real consequences though. The more racist the republicans win, the worse they are when elected. GHW Bush ran against Willie Horton and as penance nominated a clearly unqualified Clarence Thomas to the supreme court, passed a civil rights bill which was really just a quota bill and wussed out when it came to the LA riots. </i><br /><br />I don't know where you got the idea Clarence Thomas was "clearly unqualified". That's wasn't the case at all, which is why the Democrats went with Anita Hill when it came time to attack. Attacking his qualifications would have been a lot safer, politically.<br /><br />He's probably the best justice on the court. He doesn't spend a lot of time divining emanations of penumbras like the leftists, and unlike Scalia and Roberts his decisions are consistent. How the hell Scalia got to where he ended up on <i>Raich</i> baffles me to this day. And the less said about Roberts and ACA the better.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40829515031249314512012-10-29T14:58:24.717-07:002012-10-29T14:58:24.717-07:00Simon in London said:
"I teach LLMs for a li...Simon in London said:<br /><br />"I teach LLMs for a living; I know about legal academia."<br /><br />I have a couple of questions for you.<br /><br />First about this statement. I'm curious, how intelligent do you need to be to teach law? I mean do you have to be as intelligent as a Mathematics Professor? And if you do, or if you have to be smarter, is that a good thing?<br /><br />Or perhaps more importantly a useful thing? I mean if society somehow managed to arrange that only people of average intelligence were allowed to practice law, do we lose anything?<br /><br />Secondly, you also stated:<br /><br />"No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching."<br /><br />From Wikipedia, presumably true:<br /><br />"He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."<br /><br />Ok, look uhh the University of Chicago has a rep over here, y'know? I mean the undergrads there once held a protest because the University wanted to LIGHTEN their homework load.<br /><br />That place can get just about anyone, just about any black anyone to teach there.<br /><br />And they chose this guy. I mean how badly can he suck?<br /><br />Assuming you were qualified to teach American Law, do you think you are better qualified? Do you think you could do a better job than he did?<br /><br />I am a cynic. Even if you have a faculty spot at a top tier school, that isn't necessarily impressive in my eyes. I've kind of been assuming Obama was kind of an Omega-Prole, toting his lunchbox and a pack of Winstons (Newports? I bet he smokes regular cigarettes.) into the U of C everyday. Just another faceless automaton, beating the dogma into the heads of another generation of kids privileged in one way or another to become movers and shakers. Just another man trying to make it to the weekend, and a flight to Aspen.<br /><br />I had no reason to think he was any worse an Omega-Prole than anyone else in the job.<br /><br />And I was wrong? Tell me why I was wrong.<br /><br />I just gotta know. Is there some cute English way to say that, "I just gotta know?" I mean with bollocks or something?sunbeamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16540822135478202229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33547766542719689102012-10-29T13:58:57.098-07:002012-10-29T13:58:57.098-07:00As for ACTUAL hints as to where the race is going,...As for ACTUAL hints as to where the race is going, well, just look at the campaigns. They're moving into several states that were solid blue territory, and out of "RCP tossups." Acting as if their lying eyes (campaign polls, which are reputedly much more accurate and detailed than public polls, and kept private) are telling them something the public polls aren't. And every day rams home more clearly the idea that the zero has left indies for dead and is appealing solely to his base because he knows the only way he can win is by exceeding his 2008 turnout with his base (I'm not really interested in collecting all the headlines that drive this home, but they constitute a litany at this point).Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78281959577966077592012-10-29T13:52:40.418-07:002012-10-29T13:52:40.418-07:00Also, this map and others of its kind assume that ...<i>Also, this map and others of its kind assume that pollsters are broadly trying to get the election right, and aren't doing something dumb. There's always the possibility that the pollsters are skewing their models somehow, and there is a definite possibiltiy of feedback loops between pollsters, where I see that my predictions are off from everyone else's, and so I tweak my model to agree with theirs. On the other hand, proposed tweaks to the models by partisans that just happen to predict their side winning sort-of peg my skepticism meter.</i><br /><br />If you go to battlegroundwatch.com and read the articles for the last two weeks, and the comments, you'll come away with several plausible theories on how pollsters could easily get it wrong (in the direction we're seeing from the polls currently) without any conscious bias. Nutshell: the polls sway this way and that based on genuine and legitimate opinions about how best to poll the electorate. Polling is not even remotely an exact science. Also, a lot of the failings come down to money; it's MUCH more expensive to run a good poll than a sloppy one. The less rigorously you screen voters, the more a poll will screen Dem. A lot of these polls are good for predicting a race with 90% turnout. Problem is, 90% turnout never happens. 60-65% turnouts happen (and it's much easier to model 90% turnout than real-world turnout).Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27151959098782815492012-10-29T13:45:46.694-07:002012-10-29T13:45:46.694-07:00The critical thing to keep in mind about the polls...<i>The critical thing to keep in mind about the polls is that the only thing that counts for deciding who gets to be president is the electoral college vote. So national polls are only interesting to the extent that they may give some hint about ongoing large scale changes in opinion that will shift the critical states' outcomes. </i><br /><br />Uhm, I'd think their statistical relationship between national polls and state and national electoral outcomes would be far more interesting than any hints they give about large-scale changes. As I said:<br /><br /><i>There's also the popular vote margins, and what they tend to say about state elections (i.e., the zero is around 47, and Romney is above 50, in Gallup and Rasmussen's national polls, while ABC had Romney leading by a point IIRC). AFAICT it would be unprecedented for an incumbent to be under 50 and down 3-5 pts in national polls and still win the election.</i>Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59486293194089150422012-10-29T13:39:54.084-07:002012-10-29T13:39:54.084-07:00Big Bill:
"You aren't Simon the LLM are y...Big Bill:<br />"You aren't Simon the LLM are you? Or the redheaded Orthodox Jew in Section 1? You speak with such ... familiarity."<br /><br />I teach LLMs for a living; I know about legal academia. <br />Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53266346686539208032012-10-29T12:39:57.090-07:002012-10-29T12:39:57.090-07:00"- So by the same token, you are a traitor to..."- So by the same token, you are a traitor to yours if you aren't going back to Africa?"<br /><br />I have never called anyone a "race traitor."Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13742326383005899402012-10-29T12:20:44.594-07:002012-10-29T12:20:44.594-07:00A funny thing about the poll is that 64 percent im...A funny thing about the poll is that 64 percent implicit bias against Blacks for Republicans and 55 percent for Democrats suggest that there is slightly more nonblack implicit bias against Blacks among democrats, assuming most of them are not biased against themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25208904811592757842012-10-29T11:20:00.770-07:002012-10-29T11:20:00.770-07:00"I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but..."I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but just for the sake of the forum, how do you figure that?"<br /><br />Do you see any Koreans in those oil paintings of the founding fathers?<br /><br />I thought not, so why slap the founding fathers of the Hangul empire in the face by living here?<br /><br />If some anti-racist Jew is a race-traitor, so are you.------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Truth,<br /><br />Jump to conclusions, much? You don't know why I'm here, what I do. I may be a Korean spy for all you know. Maybe, I see myself as a pioneer. Maybe I see myself as a conciliator. Etc.<br /><br />What I don't do is from a position of authority, mislead Koreans (or Asians) into a false "consciousnees" or lay some destructive guilt upon them. BTW, I live in a very mixed racial area of California. Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and blacks. I do so willingly, because I've got "better" options. I don't do the real estate/crime calculus<br />of blacks to whites etc. Not gonna second guess the motivations of the Stanford prof for living in a 100% (rounded up) non-black enclave. But, that makes him a hypocrite at a minimum. But thanks for pointing out he's Jewish. If so, possibly he doesn't see the hypocrisy or the race traitorous nature of his ways, because he doesn't see himself as white. Maybe, he doesn't "see" race anymore. He see's DEEP into the stars, beyond our ken.<br /><br />Haciendanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43086103551114930792012-10-29T10:14:21.335-07:002012-10-29T10:14:21.335-07:00Okay, yesterday evening there were 19 comments. N...Okay, yesterday evening there were 19 comments. Now there are 16 and the one pointing out that Krosnick lives in whitopia is one of the MIA comments. Also, you can no longer post comments.<br /><br />Hmm.<br /><br />Free speech on the Minnesota public radio blog?<br />Not so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2579081837118535842012-10-29T10:07:04.643-07:002012-10-29T10:07:04.643-07:00"I'll never understand the hatred of Obam..."I'll never understand the hatred of Obama on this board."<br />says Sunbeam.<br /><br />Really? Then you aren't reading closely enough, and garner your news from CNN and NPR. btw, a recent defector from CNN admitted they were a bought and paid for propaganda piece for this Adminstration.<br /><br />The reasons are too numerous to go into here, and include "my people" Eric Holder. But most recently and egregiously, we have Benghazi. Obama was the only one who could have made the final decision about that and the childish lies about videos inflaming the Muslims fell apart immediately. The father of one dead Navy Seal, said Obama did not look him in the eyes (I can see that distant cold stare now) and had a handshake like a dead fish. I don't want Obama dead, either as a fish or otherwise. I just want him to go away back to the lagoon he came from. He & the Mrs. have done enough vacations and entertaining on the taxpayers' dime. Mrs. O (who was debarred from practicing law in th 90s) said publically she was never proud of being American. Yet she spent more of other Americans' money on herself than almost anybody. Pure parasite of a huge variety. What's not to hate?<br />I mean, really, Sunbeam. <br />For a realists like most of us, there is just no reason not to "hate" him, although that word used against a politician has a different meaning than towards someone you know personally. A politician of that level has lives in his hands. And I do not want my life, or the life of anyone I care about, in his hands.<br />That he doesn't identify as American is fine with me. But do not desire to be President of a people and country you hate. Because that's is freaking weird; but not as weird as most reasons people voted for him.<br />2008 will be looked back upon as the year of delusional thinking, like a populace hit with St. Vitus dance.<br /><br />For all I know, Romney could be just as loathsome (as Bush was imo). But at least we won't have him and his Mrs. diss Americans (particuarly white ones) behind their backs (Secret Sevice information) while partying on our dime and ignoring those 3:00 am m'aider phone calls.<br /><br />ciceronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62364655120563558482012-10-29T09:42:28.566-07:002012-10-29T09:42:28.566-07:00"Big Bill said...
Simon:"sunbeam:
"... "Big Bill said...<br />Simon:"sunbeam:<br />"He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books..."<br /><br />No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching."<br /><br /><br />I agree Big Bill. Obama has no writings to speak of except for a ghost-written autobio that does qualify as fiction perhaps. Maybe he could ghost-write novels. But not law. Can't imagine him engaging students in any sort of lively debate. Debate doesn't seem to suit him. And since professors can't use teleprompters for their lectures (yet), I can't see him in the classroom. Can you? <br />He might be ok teaching narcs though.<br />unixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75147927501146284842012-10-29T05:53:22.536-07:002012-10-29T05:53:22.536-07:00I come up with plans that could have blocked amnes...<i>I come up with plans that could have blocked amnesty or exacted a price after it happened, but I can't find anyone else to help out.</i><br /><br />Can you give me a link to these plans?Glaivesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867323638154972101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11787621521430437462012-10-29T04:11:41.126-07:002012-10-29T04:11:41.126-07:00Simon:"sunbeam:
"He really would have be...Simon:"sunbeam:<br />"He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books..."<br /><br />No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching."<br /><br />You aren't Simon the LLM are you? Or the redheaded Orthodox Jew in Section 1? You speak with such ... familiarity.Big Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52856629496622467302012-10-29T03:10:48.388-07:002012-10-29T03:10:48.388-07:00@ Silver,
One of the best race cartoons I've ...@ Silver,<br /><br /><i>One of the best race cartoons I've seen (I dislike most of them) is about a Jewish professor. In the first panel he is visibly pleased as he evaluates a black girl selecting a black doll as psychologically sound. In the second panel his hair stands on end and his face contorts in horror as a white girl selects a white doll.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2fj73adQc1qgqvj1o1_500.jpg" rel="nofollow">In the same vein.</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8493590818698702312012-10-28T23:24:07.842-07:002012-10-28T23:24:07.842-07:00"Civil Rights" "activists" are...<i>"Civil Rights" "activists" are complaining that the Minnesota Timberwolves are "too white"</i> --anon<br /><br />Back when the team was first formed and given the name, local comic Jeff Gerbino snorted, "'Timberwolves'? That sounds like five short, slow white guys!"Reg Cæsarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35660322312228891372012-10-28T22:17:32.853-07:002012-10-28T22:17:32.853-07:00"I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but..."I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but just for the sake of the forum, how do you figure that?"<br /><br />Do you see any Koreans in those oil paintings of the founding fathers?<br /><br />I thought not, so why slap the founding fathers of the Hangul empire in the face by living here?<br /><br />If some anti-racist Jew is a race-traitor, so are you.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18687781893385264212012-10-28T21:44:48.579-07:002012-10-28T21:44:48.579-07:00As a Canadian, I don't follow US any closer th...<i>As a Canadian, I don't follow US any closer than necessary, but do commenters here really feel Obama will lose? He seems to still have an edge in the polls (and the Iowa election market).</i><br /><br />And at the sportsbooks. Obama is now at -195 (i.e., you must risk $195 to win $100 if you bet on Obama to win). ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62876411264665224672012-10-28T21:17:35.453-07:002012-10-28T21:17:35.453-07:00tommy 3:16:
Isn't that missing the point of s...tommy 3:16:<br /><br />Isn't that missing the point of social sciences? I mean, they are explicitly trying to learn about how people perceive the world or think about the world, both correctly and incorrectly. That's their area of study, and it's quite important. Anyone who wants to do anything very big has to work out how to get lots of people pointed in the same direction, anyone who wants peace and prosperity needs to work out how to get the basic functions of government handled (defense, police, courts, roads) done. If you want to sell something, or resist someome else's sales tactics, knowing how humans like you think is very worthwhile. And so on. <br /><br />NOTAnoreply@blogger.com