Editing 2370: Prediction
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete|There is a 50/50 chance this was created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | |
− | + | This comic is about misunderstanding {{w|probability}}. Sometimes people will incorrectly assume that if one event is likelier than another to occur, then that event WILL occur, or that if one names two or more outcomes, they are equally likely to occur when in fact they might have different probabilities. | |
− | + | Saying that an event is more likely to happen than not to happen is not the same as saying that the event is definitely going to happen. At the same time, even if the event not happening is possible, it's not 50/50 odds that the event will happen. People have difficulties understanding statements like "event A has a 70% probability to happen" and internally understanding it to be one of the two misconceptions above. | |
− | For example, | + | Some don't like probability statements because they are not definite and therefore cannot be proven wrong. For example, if a probability statement says "event A has a 1% probability to happen" and event A actually happens, that does not prove the statement wrong, because the statement admits of the possibility of event A happening. |
− | The correct interpretation of a probability statement like "event A has a 70% probability to happen" is that in the long run, about 70% of | + | For example, FiveThirtyEight famously gave Trump a higher odds of winning the 2016 U.S. presidential election than most other models did just before the election, but still not more likely ([https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ 28.6%]) than his opponent. However, many readers at the time interpreted that as "Trump is definitely going to lose", and after he won that election, blasted FiveThirtyEight for getting its prediction "wrong". However, that interpretation is mistaken. 28.6% means Trump had a real chance at winning, between throwing a coin twice and both time landing on heads (1/4 or 25%) and throwing a d6 and getting a 1 or 2 (1/3 33.333...%), both of which events are intuitively possible. |
+ | |||
+ | The correct interpretation of a probability statement like "event A has a 70% probability to happen" is that in the long run, of those events you give 70% probabilities to, about 70% of them end up happening. If, for example, 99% of those events ended up happening, the 70% probabilities you gave those events may likely be wrong (you should've given probabilities closer to 1), even though you "called" almost all events correctly (in the sense that 70% means the events are more likely to happen than not to happen, and almost all of them happened). Looking back at your predictions and seeing if the results are what you should expect is called {{w|Calibration (statistics)|calibration}} ([https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/ example]). | ||
In the last panel, it is shown that [[Cueball]] anticipated this lack of understanding, so he plays pre-recorded audio of his prediction for the conversation. | In the last panel, it is shown that [[Cueball]] anticipated this lack of understanding, so he plays pre-recorded audio of his prediction for the conversation. | ||
− | The title text says that these people are gullible enough to the point that they would accept a disadvantageous bet. However, it also says | + | The title text says that these people are gullible enough to the point that they would accept a disadvantageous bet. However, it also says that they might not actually go through with paying the bet if they lose. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | At the time of writing, the 2020 United States presidential and congressional elections were less than a month away. This is a time when polls showing one or the other candidate leading are common, and may be misinterpreted to mean that the candidate is certain to win. Additionally, after the 2016 election saw Donald Trump, the trailing candidate in the polls, winning, many also interpreted this to mean that the polls were useless and/or wrong, or even go beyond this and take an adverse poll prediction as a perversely authoritative indication that the exact opposite result (which they would favour) is now a certainty. Cueball has previously shown an interest in U.S. election polling, for example in [[500: Election]]. | |
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Line 43: | Line 41: | ||
:White Hat: Sounds like you have no idea what will happen. | :White Hat: Sounds like you have no idea what will happen. | ||
:Cueball: And yet I knew exactly how this conversation would go. Here, listen: | :Cueball: And yet I knew exactly how this conversation would go. Here, listen: | ||
− | |||
:<nowiki>*Click*</nowiki> | :<nowiki>*Click*</nowiki> | ||
:Phone: ''Then you'll say, "So it's 50/50"'' | :Phone: ''Then you'll say, "So it's 50/50"'' | ||
Line 52: | Line 49: | ||
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] | [[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] | ||
[[Category:Statistics]] | [[Category:Statistics]] | ||
− |