= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on 1001 PredictionBook Nights - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
Since the study focused on the period around the 2008 elections, which the Democrats won on nearly all levels, and since most pundits tend to be biased towards believing that what they wish would happen will happen, it's not surprising that liberals' predictions did better and some conservatives scored worse than random. I suspect we'd see the trend go the other way for say predictions about the 2010 midterms. The fundamental problem is that the predictions weren't independent.
In particular, one should be skeptical of having lots of people who consistently do worse than average.
I think, though, that it would, in fact, be worthwhile to do the analysis combining 2008 and 2010. I think Paul Krugman had already started panicking by then.
More interesting might be to see how much data it takes for prediction markets to beat most/all pundits.
I would expect Krugman to suffer penalties over the last few years; I don't read him very much, but he seems to have gotten much more partisan and inaccurate as time passes.