Statisticians are worthless salespeople. There is nothing scientific

That's correct and obvious, just like facts that CO2 does cause climate change and that there's no bigger number than 10^200

>>8465353

you clearly know nothing about science then.

Garbage in, Garbage out, the election.

prediction models and polls based on 2008/2012 elections. which Obama enjoyed abnormally high voter turn out.

>>8465353
Nate silver was right in saying "Hey guys, you know that Donald trump could still win, right?"

Meanwhile Sam wong goes around with his
95% chance hillary" model.

>>8465353
>There is nothing scientific about the field.

Well, the problem is that you are not looking at scientific facts. You are looking at political and media stats. Those people were bought by Clinton. They literally said that Trump had a 1% chance of winning.

Where did that number came from? He was already really close in the polls. How could it be just 1%. This was obviously pushed to make the people who vote for Donald Trump think that 'Oh, he will never win so why even bother go to vote'.

Those stats were not collected, they were manufactured by Clinton's campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone knew Trump was going to win with a 100% chance and this is exactly why they pushed the 1% narrative.

>SEE GUYS! HE CAN'T WIN! DON'T EVEN BOTHER VOTING HAHA. HE CAN'T. LOL. LOL. RIGHT GUYS?

And just like in Brexit, the corrupted establishment got BTFO. Lets make america great again. Lets make statistics great again.

>>8465353
Statistics in an embarrassment to the mathematical community.
It's like being a drug dealer or a pharmacist instead of a surgeon.
Learn some real math guys or get the fuck out of this field.

>>8465353
bad troll

Stat is a /biz/ degree. Any statistician during the election was actually weighting the money they'd receive for fake results against the potential backlash they'd get.

File: stock-photo-9128453-asian-man-reading.jpg (369KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1024x683px

>"objective data" is inexorably at the mercy of human consciousness
>unironically not knowing this

>>8466606
>Stat is a /biz/ degree.
You don't know shit about stat.

>>8465353
>/pol/ bend and stretch statistics to validate their racism
>"ablooo blooo it doesn't work when it's against me!!!!11"

>>8466662
What are you talking about? Statisticians predicted that Trump had a 1% chance of winning.

Was that ever reflected during the actual voting? No, since the beginning he had more electoral votes than Hillary and Statisticians had to immediately backpedal to like "Well... it is actually more like 35% lol"

>>8466699
Salty losers will be salty losers. Just enjoy the show.

>>8466699
>Was that ever reflected during the actual voting?
Well yeah, even with how hated hillary was she STILL won the popular vote

>>8466699
She received more votes. No amount of thinking can counter-react the retardation of american political system

>>8466699
Pretty sure anon was referring to race statistics, like racial differences in IQ.

>>8466745
>Hillary won the popular vote
True, but by less and 500,000.
And it doesn't even matter.

>>8466514
>nuthugging a billionaire this badly
kill yourself

>>8466915
Except it does matter when we talk about stats. Polling statistics were almost right on the money about how Clinton performed vs. Trump in the popular vote. Polls showed about a 2% lead for Clinton, denoting a close race. Clinton won the popular vote by about 1%, a figure well within the margin of error.

The pollsters and statisticians were validated.

File: 1448011859098.jpg (406KB, 653x635px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 653x635px

>>8465353
Nah, we just write allot of stuff down in a language that seems verry impressive.

also:
can you compute the following conditional probability?

[math]p(mememagic\in\mathbb{R} | Trump = POTUS )[/math]

>>8466514
Why would the democrats sabotage polls to give their base a false sense of security.
I think dawkins was right; people were afraid to admit to pollsters that they supported trump because of the embarassing shit he does.

>>8465353
Looks like someone's jellymad because they're too much of a brainlet to be a quant

>>8466887
Indeed I was.

>>8466966
The probability of mememagic being a real number given that trump is POTUS? I'd say 1.

>>8466972

good one

>stats is imperfect so it is not scientific
has /pol/ invaded this board TOO?

>>8465353

Biggest problem is people using perverted statistics to make shit up. Think business people and data scientists.

>>8465353
Sure OP, keep telling yourself that

Meanwhile i make real money (160k/yr) with a Bachelor's degree and have a beautiful blonde wife, you still keep memeing on with "muh pure math" on a American Imageboard of meems and only making 50k/yr with a PhD and teaching elementary asshole kids how to add and subtract

>image.jpg
Anyway i hope this is b8 and it's just to make a civil war of nerds
>>8466517
Here's your (you)