You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gjm comments on Open Thread, May 4 - May 10, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 04 May 2015 12:06AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (215)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 07 May 2015 10:31:03AM 4 points [-]

The tails go from capturing 11% of people to 21%, not a negligible shift but not a radical one either.

Seems pretty radical to me (assuming it's real and not a measurement artefact, of course).

Comment author: satt 09 May 2015 03:55:12PM 0 points [-]

When I framed it to myself as "that's a doubling of the tails!" it did sound impressive, but I remembered how easy it is to make modest changes in a distribution's mean and/or variance sound extreme by focusing attention on the tails, where such changes have an outsized impact.

My reaction was to roughly translate that tail doubling into the corresponding change in the whole distribution's standard deviation, and I got about 30%. Expressed like that, the change was clearly substantial, but it didn't strike me as radical. Opinions may differ!

(For this reply, I thought I'd try estimating a standard deviation for each distribution in a more systematic way. From Pew's appendix I worked out the mid-interval value for each of the 5 ideological-consistency bins, then calculated the standard deviations using those mid-interval bin values. This is still inexact, but hopefully less so than my original back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. For 1994 I got 3.90; for 2004, 3.91; and for 2014, 4.80. That gives a 23% increase in standard deviation from 2004 to 2014.)