As a political scientist, though, what really irks me is the bit about “The pollsters got it wrong because . . .” Off by 2%, dude! I agree that this 2% was a problem—and it was more than 2% in some key states—but, shoot, man, what kind of accuracy are you expecting here? Suppose the polls had been off by 1%? Then would that be ok with you?

As a small-d democrat, I’m also repulsed by this guy’s characterization of Republican voters (yes, they voted approx 50% Republican for the House and Senate, not just for president, also they gave Mitt Romney 48% of the two-party vote in 2012, etc.) as “an appeal to the brain’s limbic system.” {…}

This particular Hari Seldon concludes with a statement about “the electorate has concluded.” Kind of amazing how the electoral college is part of neuroscience too.

What I’m wondering is, if this was all so damn obvious, why didn’t he publish it before the election? That would’ve been much cooler.

Source: Know-it-all neuroscientist explains Trump’s election victory to the rest of us – Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

Category: Espresso

About the Author

One Response to Andrew Gelman: Know-it-all neuroscientist explains Trump’s election victory to the rest of us

  1. Natasha says:

    The internet is a lot more as being a little nation, with assorted sects and towns liking different
    things. The first form of promotional strategy that may be examined
    is search results advertising. This is the best online website marketing affiliate product around the net.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.