News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nate Silver confuses cause and effect, ends up defending corruption. Parent comment

Re:Nate Silver confuses cause and effect, ends up defending ... by cube13 on Thursday December 20, 2012 @03:08PM (#4949663)
>On this view O'Neil's view is correct: the cause was not "bad modelling" but "bad data." The "bad data" in the model was an "effect" of corruption, not the root "cause" of the financial meltdown.

So it goes that corruption caused bad data, which caused a bad analysis by the model(she claims that both the data and model are bad), which caused the financial meltdown.

That does not invalidate Silver's point. It merely points out that Silver's analysis may be inadequate.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nate Silver confuses cause and effect, ends up defending ... by freyr on Thursday December 20, 2012 @04:25PM (#4950119)
Silver's point can be technically valid, but ultimately shallow and irrelevant. That seems to be what she's arguing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nate Silver confuses cause and effect, ends up defending ... by pygy_ on Thursday December 20, 2012 @04:04PM (#4949977)
What I understand is that she means that corruption lead to the financial crisis. The bad models/data were just a smoke screen, or an instrument to get rich quicker.
[ Parent | on HN ]