Friday, December 21, 2012
Why Nate Silver is Not Just Wrong, but Maliciously Wrong“It does require maturity to realize that models are to be used, but not to be believed” – Henri Theil
Cathy O’Neil argues that Nate Silver is wrong over at Naked Capitalism (via Alyssa Pelish):
I have major problems with this book and what it claims to explain. In fact, I’m angry.
It would be reasonable for Silver to tell us about his baseball models, which he does. It would be reasonable for him to tell us about political polling and how he uses weights on different polls to combine them to get a better overall poll. He does this as well. He also interviews a bunch of people who model in other fields, like meteorology and earthquake prediction, which is fine, albeit superficial.
What is not reasonable, however, is for Silver to claim to understand how the financial crisis was a result of a few inaccurate models, and how medical research need only switch from being frequentist to being Bayesian to become more accurate.
Let me give you some concrete examples from his book.
Easy First Example: Credit Rating Agencies
The ratings agencies, which famously put AAA ratings on terrible loans, and spoke among themselves as being willing to rate things that were structured by cows, did not accidentally have bad underlying models. The bankers packaging and selling these deals, which amongst themselves they called sacks of shit, did not blithely believe in their safety because of those ratings.
Rather, the entire industry crucially depended on the false models. Indeed they changed the data to conform with the models, which is to say it was an intentional combination of using flawed models and using irrelevant historical data (see points 64-69 here for more).
In baseball, a team can’t create bad or misleading data to game the models of other teams in order to get an edge. But in the financial markets, parties to a model can and do.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 03:49 PM | Permalink