Re:Nate Silver confuses cause and effect, ends up defending ...
by chc on Thursday December 20, 2012 @02:44PM
(#4949525)
She wrote this piece because she thinks he's only citing the proximate cause and not the ultimate cause. At least that's how it reads to me.
She doesn't appear to be disputing the idea that following bad models caused the crisis — instead, she just seems to be saying Silver missed the fact that the models were deliberately bad rather than simply a poor application of math.
A few quotes from the author herself:
"the entire industry crucially depended on the false models."
"Silver gives four examples what he considers to be failed models at the end of his first chapter, all related to economics and finance. But each example is actually a success (for the insiders) if you look at a slightly larger picture and understand the incentives inside the system."
She's not disputing that the models were false or even that acting in accordance with the models is what caused the crisis. She's disputing that this was accidental.
She doesn't appear to be disputing the idea that following bad models caused the crisis — instead, she just seems to be saying Silver missed the fact that the models were deliberately bad rather than simply a poor application of math.
A few quotes from the author herself:
"the entire industry crucially depended on the false models."
"Silver gives four examples what he considers to be failed models at the end of his first chapter, all related to economics and finance. But each example is actually a success (for the insiders) if you look at a slightly larger picture and understand the incentives inside the system."
She's not disputing that the models were false or even that acting in accordance with the models is what caused the crisis. She's disputing that this was accidental.