My first question with this story is whether it's true or just a made up tale to validate democracy.  Second, I'd like to see how repeatable this is.  As a scientist after getting a result like that which is totally unexpected, I would think he would do a few more trials.

Even if it's valid picking the correct weight of a cow is nothing like picking the right candidate in an election. Weight is an absolute number and the only variable.  Political choices are subjective with many issues involved, along with personalities.  There is also advertising and campaigning involved.

What I find interesting is how close elections always seem to be.  It's rare they get past the 5-/4- range.  Which means most elections are determined by a relatively small number of swing voters.

RE

I don't make much of the accuracy of the result.  Errors have to cancel each other out.  Physics that distribute errors around a central value are limited to specific scenarios.

Vulgar economics is group think, deception, and ass kissing.  True that.  When a vulgar economist looks at his reflection in a mirror he/she can't see anything.

Real economics says the next 'recession' is going to happen because boom and bust is built into the system dynamics of our economic system.  Now it is time for a bust.  It is in the cards.

There are a lot of events happening now which could trigger a rather long emergency.

Place your bets.  The dice are rolling.




We have a bull in the China shop.  A gambler with  . 

Asking 500 people when shit hits the fan and averaging the result would be interesting.  But we have to do the asking at a fair. 

Quote from: K-Dog on Mar 01, 2025, 06:46 PMI don't make much of the accuracy of the result.  Errors have to cancel each other out.

Depends on the system you are talking about. Certainly when doing any probabilistic analysis you can find where the errors are because they don't cancel themselves out, and the probability spike they cause at certain values point out where those errors are.

Check out a bathtub distribution of single point failures for automobiles...it is really weird...because the errors, if you let them cancel out, would force you to a central tendency conclusion. Which is in fact the exact opposite of the truth.

Quote from: K-DogVulgar economics is group think, deception, and ass kissing.  True that.

Sure...but as anyone who has worked with top level economists, there are things within their specialty worth knowing. How can any polymath dismiss perspectives without honestly considering them fully? I'm not talking the kind of economic amateur hour blowhards you find online or putting together substacks, but top flight on both sides of the social science, the mathematically inclined, and the more story telling side of the profession.

Playing one off against the other is fascinating, one is more like reservoir engineers or mathematicians, the other who story telling and weaving together many disparate parts into a greater hole. The funny things is when you model the folks using words, and show them that when that of their 8 woven together stories each only have a 0.45 chance of probability that the chance of occurence of the entire story is 0.45^8= 1/1000 chance of happening. Needless to say, the storytellers don't like having their stories quantified.

Quote from: K-DogReal economics says the next 'recession' is going to happen because boom and bust is built into the system dynamics of our economic system.  Now it is time for a bust.  It is in the cards.

Real econmics is herd think. The mathematical side hopes it is system dynamics, the story tellers presume their story has system dynamics behind it, the instant your science has to claim to be based on "rational actors" the seriousness of it just turns into a giggle fest.

Quote from: K-DogThere are a lot of events happening now which could trigger a rather long emergency.

Sure. Been waiting for it since the world was headed into the next ice age. Then the Great Dieoff. Accompanied now with global warming. And the world running out of oil by the end of the 1980's. Followed immediately by Colin Campbell declaring global peak oil in 1990. When it had already occurred in 1979, but Colin didn't notice!. Geologists. And then the internet was invented and every closet doomer jumped into manufacturing their favorite end of the world claims. Mayan calendar was always a good one. Planet X!

And so here we are...personal doom is still the highest probability of getting us before any long emergency (Kuntsler being one of those previously mentioned doomers)  that takes away the wealth of American communists, kills off fully dependent wards of the state, or normal folks just trying to get by. With some soting and ordering, I got 3 cars and 2 motorcyces into the garage yesterday! Now I have to figure out what to do with the other ones still in the driveway. One accomplishment at a time in a continuing age of doom!

Quote from: K-DogPlace your bets.  The dice are rolling.

...just as they have been since before we were born....long live Apocalypticism! Been here before we were born...will be here after.....

Quote from: Goldernen Oxernen on Mar 02, 2025, 04:13 PMWe need to know if guesses were made publicly or secretly. I suspect they were not and when people like cattle auctioneers, who would be experienced and expert step up and give a guesstimate, average punters treat it as a tip.

Excellent point. Doing this is referred to as "blind sampling" in statistics, and is designed to offset the bias just as you've pointed out.