I've been thinking about what you said yesterday. I still don't think they're lying. They just may not be nearly as smart as you think, and you may be a lot smarter than you realize.
I'm not sure they understand your argument. They're not trained scientists or mathematicians. They can be sloppy thinkers. When I was in grad school, I had faculty challenge me, question me, and criticize me. They're not used to having basic assumptions questioned. I am. They have a lot of "yes" people around them who can't tell them, 'look, you say you're not predicting, but you just used the word, "prediction," anyway'.
Honestly, if they can't see what you're saying, then there's something wrong. You're right that this is pseudo-science. That's accurate.
My default assumption is that people who are experts in a field are smarter than me about that field. It's the best assumption (and I'd argue any other is a dangerous one).
I don't let that assumption dictate that they know more than me about everything within it, though. I know a little about a lot. Just because they can teach me more than I can teach them, doesn't mean I can't teach them anything.
"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong" - is the simplest truth of science. It's easy enough to prove my point in theory, but after a few dozen experiments that all point the same way (the experts are wrong about poll margin and a few other important things) I at least considered the possibility.
I agree re: their supposed expertise but it took me many many years to get there, and if I had simply assumed I was right because I believed I was smart or whatever, I wouldn't have done the work to quantify it, do experiments to try and prove it.
"Intelligence" is a weird thing because above a certain level - the level required to explain and understand things - there aren't really any advantages in science imo. The willingness to question things - including authority (which is where I've made advances where others better suited for the job didn't) - probably doesn't have a strong correlation with intelligence. And it might have a negative correlation, though I say that based only on experience.
There's some fortune too, given my probably not-borderline obsession with various topics, and hyperfixation.
While what I write today comes across as so confident it borders on arrogance and beyond, it's not that I don't believe my research/observations/opinions on the subject should be questioned. It's because I questioned them all harder and more thoroughly than most anyone else would or could, and further refined them after subjecting them to qualified members of the field.
The questions and contentions I get now are mostly ones I addressed circa 2020. I'm perfectly content and willing to explain these things patiently, so much so I put it in a book. But a lot of people (experts included) seem to think that those contentions I was able to overcome pretty quickly somehow disqualify my work.
Even if I'm wrong about *something* doesn't mean I'm wrong about polls not being predictions.
Your point about the advantage of your not being part of the polling data club is right. They have to be careful about what they say because they can lose colleagues if they challenge certain assumptions. You don't have that issue. That points to the danger of not listening to those outside one's circle. We all need to get out of our limited circles periodically.
"They have to be careful about what they say because they can lose colleagues if they challenge certain assumptions."
I don't have a wide network by any means, but the messages I receive in private from many of them outright state they can't agree with me on some subjects publicly
This is excellent, per usual for you. Looking at the poll analysis reveals the emperor has no clothes. Sometimes the obvious needs to be said, as you did: the more undecided, the greater the chance for electoral surprises.
I've been thinking about what you said yesterday. I still don't think they're lying. They just may not be nearly as smart as you think, and you may be a lot smarter than you realize.
I'm not sure they understand your argument. They're not trained scientists or mathematicians. They can be sloppy thinkers. When I was in grad school, I had faculty challenge me, question me, and criticize me. They're not used to having basic assumptions questioned. I am. They have a lot of "yes" people around them who can't tell them, 'look, you say you're not predicting, but you just used the word, "prediction," anyway'.
Honestly, if they can't see what you're saying, then there's something wrong. You're right that this is pseudo-science. That's accurate.
My default assumption is that people who are experts in a field are smarter than me about that field. It's the best assumption (and I'd argue any other is a dangerous one).
I don't let that assumption dictate that they know more than me about everything within it, though. I know a little about a lot. Just because they can teach me more than I can teach them, doesn't mean I can't teach them anything.
"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong" - is the simplest truth of science. It's easy enough to prove my point in theory, but after a few dozen experiments that all point the same way (the experts are wrong about poll margin and a few other important things) I at least considered the possibility.
IMHO, you're overestimating others and underestimating yourself.
They're misguided on some fundamental issues. If they blow those, there's a serious problem with their supposed expertise.
I agree re: their supposed expertise but it took me many many years to get there, and if I had simply assumed I was right because I believed I was smart or whatever, I wouldn't have done the work to quantify it, do experiments to try and prove it.
"Intelligence" is a weird thing because above a certain level - the level required to explain and understand things - there aren't really any advantages in science imo. The willingness to question things - including authority (which is where I've made advances where others better suited for the job didn't) - probably doesn't have a strong correlation with intelligence. And it might have a negative correlation, though I say that based only on experience.
There's some fortune too, given my probably not-borderline obsession with various topics, and hyperfixation.
While what I write today comes across as so confident it borders on arrogance and beyond, it's not that I don't believe my research/observations/opinions on the subject should be questioned. It's because I questioned them all harder and more thoroughly than most anyone else would or could, and further refined them after subjecting them to qualified members of the field.
The questions and contentions I get now are mostly ones I addressed circa 2020. I'm perfectly content and willing to explain these things patiently, so much so I put it in a book. But a lot of people (experts included) seem to think that those contentions I was able to overcome pretty quickly somehow disqualify my work.
Even if I'm wrong about *something* doesn't mean I'm wrong about polls not being predictions.
Your point about the advantage of your not being part of the polling data club is right. They have to be careful about what they say because they can lose colleagues if they challenge certain assumptions. You don't have that issue. That points to the danger of not listening to those outside one's circle. We all need to get out of our limited circles periodically.
"They have to be careful about what they say because they can lose colleagues if they challenge certain assumptions."
I don't have a wide network by any means, but the messages I receive in private from many of them outright state they can't agree with me on some subjects publicly
This is excellent, per usual for you. Looking at the poll analysis reveals the emperor has no clothes. Sometimes the obvious needs to be said, as you did: the more undecided, the greater the chance for electoral surprises.
Don't pull at the thread for too long. You'll end up naked and ranting about poll margins on the internet.
Wait