Now that we've done Monty Hall, here's another probability-related question.
If the odds to back D. Trump becoming Republican nominee are 1.03, and the odds to back a Republican winning the presidency are 3.30, what would you expect the odds to back D. Trump winning the presidency should be?
Please show your workings.
Depends if Trump's odds of winning the presidency given the nomination are the same as not-Trump's.
True, but with a 97% probability of Trump getting the nomination, it would have to be one mega-humungous discrepancy to make much difference to the final answer.
There are a couple of other assumptions factoring into the GOP price - namely his opponent will be Hillary and not AN Other Democrat (Which would cause the GOP price to drift). But if you assume the GOP price is correct then the implied Trump presidency price must be correct.
I make it astronomical odds he wins the presidency as an independent (Around 330,000-1 off the bag of a fag packet) (Mainly due to missing filing deadlines) - so you don't really need to factor that in.
What you do need to factor in is a serious medical event/death, the morbidity tables give a 2.38% chance for a 70 year old man in a year - so perhaps halve it and subtract 0.38 to give 1% chance morbidity for Trump (He seems in good enough health).
Bearing in mind his colour and campaign, you'll probably want an extra 3% for that... (Finger in air guess ?)
So 1.03 * 3.30 * 1.04 = 3.53 maybe ?
Not just Trump. Hillary and Sanders (and Biden) are also eligible for free bus passes. What are the chances one dies of old age and we spend the next 50 years arguing whether the CIA or mafia did them in?
Trump has to be a pretty good candidate for assassination. (One presumes he is quietly alerting the CIA behind the scenes that he won't actually be changing anything much if he makes it to power..)
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
In the Monty Hall problem you should switch, which doubles your probability of getting the car from 1/3 to 2/3.
Here's the simplest explanation I can do.
We're going to work out the probability of getting the car if you switch. There are two cases. First, you may have chosen the door with the car in the first place. There's a 1/3 probability you did. If you switch, obviously you won't get the car. Second, you could have chosen a door with a goat. The host opens another door with a goat behind it, so the remaining door must have the car. Now if you switch, you must get the car. Adding up the probabilities, we get (1/3 x 0) + (2/3 x 1), a 2/3 probability of getting the car.
If you don't switch, nothing that happens later matters: your probability of getting the car is 1/3.
Even some professional mathematicians (although not probabilists, AFAIK) have got this wrong.
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
Can anyone confirm the rules about photographing your ballot paper at a referendum? Do they differ to those in force at an election?
Middle class parents of white Islamic convert dubbed 'Jihadi Jack' are charged with TERRORISM offences 'after sending him money after he fled to Syria aged 18'
Enjoyed Richard N's perceptive analysis of the thought process of a Leave-leaning hardcore Labour voter - I'm sure he's spot on in some cases.
But as EiT points out, there is probably some slack for Remain to pick up among Labour voters who haven't yet picked up the party position on this. I doubt if that will still be true by the time of voting.
I think that there are good numbers of Shy Remainers too. Leavers can be very "in your face" so easy to nod and slide towards the exit.
The header suggests a tendency to the status quo, but my caveat is that I think some will see Leave as the status quo. I mean that one theme that I get from Leavers here and elsewhere is that they do not like the way the country has changed, and I think Leave is often seen as a vote against change.
Going from Social Media, leavers are incredibly in your face. Anybody not voting leave are, and this when they are being polite, called traitors etc. I would never admit to voting remain among a lot of leave voters.
Host gets to see behind both remaining doors in order to open one with a goat otherwise there isn't a game to play. He'll never open the one with a car.if you swap it's as if 3 people get a go at door opening but one of them will give you the car if he should win.
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
Perversely I think it helps Remain if Leave still seem to be in with a good chance of winning by 23rd June.
I agree with you.
I don't. If anything Leave seeming mainstream and like a winner will destroy Remains greatest card they're trying to play (all sane people back us and only loonies back them, you're not a loon are you?)
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
Perversely I think it helps Remain if Leave still seem to be in with a good chance of winning by 23rd June.
I agree with you.
I don't. If anything Leave seeming mainstream and like a winner will destroy Remains greatest card they're trying to play (all sane people back us and only loonies back them, you're not a loon are you?)
I think it will motivate Remainers to turn out and vote, and some Leavers will bottle it if they genuinely think they might win, but we'll see.
I will continue to campaign, donate, fight and vote for a Leave win, which is what I want.
Remain doing well: settle this for a generation! The eurosceptics will be sidelined! They will have to shut up for good!
Remain doing badly: all Leavers are ignorant xenophobes and racists; I'm going to enjoy watch the economy collapse all around me.
My guess is that in the EU Referendum, and the US Presidential election, we'll see what we saw in the Austrian election. The Establishment just about scrape home, after getting an enormous fright.
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
Yes. I'd love to think LEAVE is is heading for victory, as the polls imply, but I foresee a swingback on the day of battle.
Saying you're a LEAVE voter now is a cost-free way of sticking to the man, and putting the wind up David Cameron, and all his smirking Establishment chums and their ghastly luvvy colleagues. And it's working: they are panicking, check the pb REMAINIANS on the last thread.
Voting LEAVE on the day is a different thing entirely. Your estimate of 5-10% bottlers seems about right to me, and will deliver a narrow REMAIN "triumph".
The questions then become:-
1. How big will the Leave vote be?
And
2. If it is a narrow Remain win, how - if at all - will this affect the attitude of the UK Government and the EU and EU states to Britain's role within the EU?
I may do a thread on this.
A really narrow Remain win - where England votes to Leave - is certainly worthy of a thread! All constitutional hell breaks out, I would suggest...
As noted by @chestnut FPT, all regions bar London and Scotland are for Leave in YouGov.
Remain doing well: settle this for a generation! The eurosceptics will be sidelined! They will have to shut up for good!
Remain doing badly: all Leavers are ignorant xenophobes and racists; I'm going to enjoy watch the economy collapse all around me.
My guess is that in the EU Referendum, and the US Presidential election, we'll see what we saw in the Austrian election. The Establishment just about scrape home, after getting an enormous fright.
Which will be perfectly good enough. A win's a win.
Remain doing well: settle this for a generation! The eurosceptics will be sidelined! They will have to shut up for good!
Remain doing badly: all Leavers are ignorant xenophobes and racists; I'm going to enjoy watch the economy collapse all around me.
My guess is that in the EU Referendum, and the US Presidential election, we'll see what we saw in the Austrian election. The Establishment just about scrape home, after getting an enormous fright.
And they will learn nothing and forget nothing.
Oh, sure, they're the modern equivalent of the House of Bourbon.
Remain doing well: settle this for a generation! The eurosceptics will be sidelined! They will have to shut up for good!
Remain doing badly: all Leavers are ignorant xenophobes and racists; I'm going to enjoy watch the economy collapse all around me.
My guess is that in the EU Referendum, and the US Presidential election, we'll see what we saw in the Austrian election. The Establishment just about scrape home, after getting an enormous fright.
Which will be perfectly good enough. A win's a win.
There are Pyrrhic victories, though. Ignoring widespread discontent doesn't work out for a ruling class in the long run.
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
My heart says OUT, my head says IN.
I have always leanings / sympathy towards BOO but I cannot decide if we actually are Better Off Out.
The Labour figure is another shocking indictment of Corbyn's lousy leadership. He has been near useless in this campaign and should kindly leave the stage (if he was ever on it).
Please explain your view on how he got the leadership in the first place.
After a hopelessly ill-judged decision to nominate him (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) a gigantic bunch of interlopers from the far-left, who have never before paid much interest in a moderate centre-left party, paid three quid apiece to elect him, this destroying Labour's electoral chances for a generation.
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
Jan-May last year I knocked on thousands of doors, after the initial trepidation I found it fascinating, a sociological experiment, thoroughly enjoyable. The vast majority of people are unfailingly polite, the only people that received any sort of abuse were female, from men, maybe a handful. I admire anybody from any party that has the bottle to go out on the knocker, its humbling and informative.
Where I remain unconvinced is how effective it is, we had a couple of canvassers that were absolute vote losers, no canvassing is better than poor canvassing so be careful who you're out with and what you're trying to achieve.
Enjoyed Richard N's perceptive analysis of the thought process of a Leave-leaning hardcore Labour voter - I'm sure he's spot on in some cases.
But as EiT points out, there is probably some slack for Remain to pick up among Labour voters who haven't yet picked up the party position on this. I doubt if that will still be true by the time of voting.
I think that there are good numbers of Shy Remainers too. Leavers can be very "in your face" so easy to nod and slide towards the exit.
The header suggests a tendency to the status quo, but my caveat is that I think some will see Leave as the status quo. I mean that one theme that I get from Leavers here and elsewhere is that they do not like the way the country has changed, and I think Leave is often seen as a vote against change.
Going from Social Media, leavers are incredibly in your face. Anybody not voting leave are, and this when they are being polite, called traitors etc. I would never admit to voting remain among a lot of leave voters.
If we consider the doors to be A, B or C then there are six potential outcomes. Not all of which have the same odds.
Contestant chooses A, Monty opens B. Call this AB. Etc
The issue is that Monty is not allowed to reveal the car. If the car is behind door A but both the Contestant and Monty act randomly then you get the following odds. For ease of comparison will show all odds in sixths.
AB 1/6 AC 1/6 BA 0/6 (not allowed) BC 2/6 CA 0/6 (not allowed) CB 2/6
Therefore there are six potential combinations. Two where switching loses, two where switching wins, two that are not permitted due to the hosts restrictions.
The switch winners add up to 4/6 or 2/3 The switch losers add up to 2/6 or 1/3
God help us....I blame it on Osborne and the Living Wage...coffee shops can't even afford the labour costs now of pouring the coffee into mugs and mixing with milk etc...
@FrancisUrquhart It's worse than that. I was in this coffee shop and there were a plethora of baristas, all of whom moved as if impersonating Steve Austin.
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
The Labour figure is another shocking indictment of Corbyn's lousy leadership. He has been near useless in this campaign and should kindly leave the stage (if he was ever on it).
Please explain your view on how he got the leadership in the first place.
After a hopelessly ill-judged decision to nominate him (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) a gigantic bunch of interlopers from the far-left, who have never before paid much interest in a moderate centre-left party, paid three quid apiece to elect him, this destroying Labour's electoral chances for a generation.
Some of the said "interlopers" were actually centre-right people!
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
My heart says OUT, my head says IN.
I have always leanings / sympathy towards BOO but I cannot decide if we actually are Better Off Out.
Jan-May last year I knocked on thousands of doors, after the initial trepidation I found it fascinating, a sociological experiment, thoroughly enjoyable. The vast majority of people are unfailingly polite, the only people that received any sort of abuse were female, from men, maybe a handful. I admire anybody from any party that has the bottle to go out on the knocker, its humbling and informative.
Where I remain unconvinced is how effective it is, we had a couple of canvassers that were absolute vote losers, no canvassing is better than poor canvassing so be careful who you're out with and what you're trying to achieve.
Agreed. I once canvassed with someone whom I had to persuade not to have a fag hanging out of the corner of his mouth. With volunteers you take what you get up to a point, but there are limits.
As for the door problem, sheesh. Bring back AV discussions!
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
Yeah I know. that's why i added
I have read it now.
For me environmental issues are pretty much paramount, so it's hard to sympathise with someone who dismisses them out of hand as unimportant, as he seems to.
The other thing that really disturbs me about him is his total reversal of views, like a Damascene conversion. Like he thought about something, ditched one conviction, then thought, "ooh, ditching principles is fun. what else can I throw out..." and ending up at totally the opposite end of he political spectrum. the flexibility, it's just too extreme.
Toni Blair may have made a similar journey (if indeed he believed in things in the first place)
Jan-May last year I knocked on thousands of doors, after the initial trepidation I found it fascinating, a sociological experiment, thoroughly enjoyable. The vast majority of people are unfailingly polite, the only people that received any sort of abuse were female, from men, maybe a handful. I admire anybody from any party that has the bottle to go out on the knocker, its humbling and informative.
Where I remain unconvinced is how effective it is, we had a couple of canvassers that were absolute vote losers, no canvassing is better than poor canvassing so be careful who you're out with and what you're trying to achieve.
Agreed. I once canvassed with someone whom I had to persuade not to have a fag hanging out of the corner of his mouth. With volunteers you take what you get up to a point, but there are limits.
As for the door problem, sheesh. Bring back AV discussions!
We had a bloke turn up with a black eye wearing a beanie. Anybody looking for stereotypes found one.
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
A seriously bad way to go. RIP.
In recent years, I've noticed a shed-load of these signs at the ends of station platforms:
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
OK, so next time an institution makes makes a statement on behalf of Remain, you won't be immediately dismissing them on the basis of self-interest?
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
OK, so next time an institution makes makes a statement on behalf of Remain, you won't be immediately dismissing them on the basis of self-interest?
No, we'll be dismissing them on the basis of scaremongering
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
A seriously bad way to go. RIP.
In recent years, I've noticed a shed-load of these signs at the ends of station platforms:
Full disclosure: I was once a member (briefly) of CWF about 10 years ago but quit due to the presence of Clarke, Walker and people like him whom my gut told me just weren't very pleasant individuals. At all.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
The Labour figure is another shocking indictment of Corbyn's lousy leadership. He has been near useless in this campaign and should kindly leave the stage (if he was ever on it).
Please explain your view on how he got the leadership in the first place.
After a hopelessly ill-judged decision to nominate him (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) a gigantic bunch of interlopers from the far-left, who have never before paid much interest in a moderate centre-left party, paid three quid apiece to elect him, this destroying Labour's electoral chances for a generation.
My understanding is that the "3-quidders" split their votes in much the same way as the rest of the electorate.
One of the issues with representative democracy is the threshold for nomination. There is no obvious equivalent to "the winner is the one who gets the most votes".
My view is that the values of Labour's activists are a million miles away from those of the 2/3rds of the electorate that are more or less right-wing, and that it would do the Tories no harm if they said in their next manifesto that socialism should be criminalised.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
Yeah, I don't have a particularly coherent position on it - that's why I'm conflicted about it. In this case maybe there are different groups of elites, who are sometimes aligned and sometimes not. And large amount of lobbying/advertising/social media aimed at misinforming people...
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
I know from personal experience that politics attracts some very unpleasant characters, no party is immune. They say its show business for ugly people, I'd say its show business for c***s. For every decent well intentioned person there's a couple of self serving pr***s.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
But by that logic no country should every enter into a Treaty with another.
Only if he was answering a different question to the one posed...!
I think my scenario is consistent with the question as worded:
"You're on a game show, and you're given a choice of three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick door no.1. The host, who knows what's behind all three doors, then opens another one, no. 2, to reveal a goat. He then asks whether you want to change your choice to no.3. Should you switch or not?"
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
If its an international agreement then presumably it will bind the UK government as well.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
But by that logic no country should every enter into a Treaty with another.
Of course they should. Treaties are not perpetual and eternal, if the public tire of it they elect a different government that resiles from it. The key point isn't what is in the agreement, it is who gets to make and break the agreement, and who if anyone elects them.
For me one of the most obscene things about the whole way the EU works is that the elected part, the EU Parliament cannot propose legislation, it does not have "legislative initiative", it only gets to agree or disagree Commission proposals, and modify them within fairly tightly defined limits - Democracy my arse.
Could be bigger this time. I have visions of 5-10% of Brexiters bottling it in the polling booth and either spoiling their ballots, double voting or going for Remain (but never admitting this tawdry affair to anyone, ever)
My heart says OUT, my head says IN.
I have always leanings / sympathy towards BOO but I cannot decide if we actually are Better Off Out.
I am seriously considering not voting.
[Deleted graphic]
There is so much rhetoric like that floating about. There seems to be little rational discussion.
This referendum is like World War 1 - two opposite sides in trenches lobbing bombs at each other and neither moving an inch in either direction.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
Britain leaving the EU would see me financially... Better off: 10% (-1) Worse off: 23% (+2) [No diff.]: 45% (-2) (via YouGov)
The public aren't really buying remains argument..
I think the public have been extremely sensible about this referendum, despite being patronised and treated like fools by the campaigns, particularly on the Remain side.
What always surprises (and pleases me) is just how well informed most people are about the debate, and how reasonable in reaching a decision.
There was actually a programme with James May and some random mates who did the equivalent thing 100 times with beer cans, in threes, one of which was vigorously shaken, the other 2 not and they then did the switch/no switch thing and then "hilariously" opened the chosen can over their heads.
100 times is probably not enough for good enough proof (ask a pollster lol) but it came out at much closer to 1/3 spraying everywhere than 1/2 even if it wasn't satisfyingly 33 or 34 out of 100 IIRC
Sorry Scott you are wrong. Imagine if there were a thousand doors, does that help? Host shows you 998 goats, leaves one door closed. Do you really think that the chances are still 50:50 that your 1 in a thousand pick initial was right? Is it not clear now that the one door out of 999 the host chose not to open is, er, the one with the car?
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
I know from personal experience that politics attracts some very unpleasant characters, no party is immune. They say its show business for ugly people, I'd say its show business for c***s. For every decent well intentioned person there's a couple of self serving pr***s.
Those particular guys (and I've met them) see seeing that type of show business character trait as a virtue.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
Britain leaving the EU would see me financially... Better off: 10% (-1) Worse off: 23% (+2) [No diff.]: 45% (-2) (via YouGov)
The public aren't really buying remains argument..
@Adam_Ludlow: "Personal" can be funny in polling. Miliband led on "my personal finances",but Con lead on economy impenetrable https://t.co/JedF2D6fBX
I am amazed at the resilience of public opinion despite the onslaught..
I doubt Remain will change their record over the next three weeks. The lesson they have drawn from both the Sindyref and GE2015 is that project fear and message discipline wins the day if you stick it.
I doubt Remain will change their record over the next three weeks. The lesson they have drawn from both the Sindyref and GE2015 is that project fear and message discipline wins the day if you stick it.
It might not win the war though.
If its a close Remain there are going to be some serious crossed fingers in No10 that they have not been sold a pup by the EU. Then hope that the deal isn't neutered by the EU Parliament. Finally, they better hope like hell that the retired ECJ Judge that described Cameron's announcement that the agreement was not subject to challenge by the ECJ as "Bullshit" is wrong, otherwise his emergency brake, and subsequently his legacy and reputation will last about 10 minutes.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
True - the importance of 'restricted choice' is VERY significant in statistics. (As it is in Bridge, if you play it.)
(Mind you it would have been more interesting if he'd picked, 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17, 19 to start off.)
For followers of Mark Clarke the Metro had a short story on the suicide of Elliot. Apparently, Clarke had threatened to "squash him like a fly". Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
I know from personal experience that politics attracts some very unpleasant characters, no party is immune. They say its show business for ugly people, I'd say its show business for c***s. For every decent well intentioned person there's a couple of self serving pr***s.
Those particular guys (and I've met them) see seeing that type of show business character trait as a virtue.
Interesting and not surprising, I know exactly the type you mean.
My general observation is that in terms of serious activists Labour are angry, Conservatives arrogant, my lot bonkers, Greens and Libs dreamers.
When I look at those 10 graphs showing last-month polling in previous British referendums, I would say a significant trend for falling support for change is evident in only two of them: Northern Ireland 1996 and AV 2011. In the latter the turnout was 42%.
You could argue that such a trend was there for the Welsh assembly votes in 1979 and 1997, but really there are too few data points except if you are a complete headbanger.
Why do they draw a trend line on some graphs but simply join up the points on others?
It's true that on none of these graphs is the red dot higher than the trend band for the polls - it's always basically in that band, which maybe conveys the subliminal message "polls are good" - but the whole approach collapses because none of these referendums was viewed as primarily about an issue on which all major parties had crapped on the wishes of the majority of the population for decades. There is more psychology going on in this referendum than in previous ones. Many people have been told it's dirty to say what they think about immigration.
Quality considerations should tell the "quants" that this referendum is different.
I remember the Sunday Times once ran a "leak" from some ministry or another in which a civil servant had prepared for his minister a short paper on the probability of slipping on another "banana skin", informed by his understanding of the Poisson distribution.
The Labour figure is another shocking indictment of Corbyn's lousy leadership. He has been near useless in this campaign and should kindly leave the stage (if he was ever on it).
Please explain your view on how he got the leadership in the first place.
After a hopelessly ill-judged decision to nominate him (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) a gigantic bunch of interlopers from the far-left, who have never before paid much interest in a moderate centre-left party, paid three quid apiece to elect him, this destroying Labour's electoral chances for a generation.
My understanding is that the "3-quidders" split their votes in much the same way as the rest of the electorate.
One of the issues with representative democracy is the threshold for nomination. There is no obvious equivalent to "the winner is the one who gets the most votes".
My view is that the values of Labour's activists are a million miles away from those of the 2/3rds of the electorate that are more or less right-wing, and that it would do the Tories no harm if they said in their next manifesto that socialism should be criminalised.
Most of the three-quidders aren't activists – and have ne'er been seen before or since the Corbyn clusterfcuk.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
True - the importance of 'restricted choice' is VERY significant in statistics. (As it is in Bridge, if you play it.)
(Mind you it would have been more interesting if he'd picked, 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17, 19 to start off.)
Could have been interesting if he'd used his knowledge to hammer out a deal with the Banker.
(He's also underpricing his experience on the show.)
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Did you read it? IIRC, you've rubbished him before without bothering. I'm disinclined to pay attention to views based on zero knowledge of the arguments made.
Yeah I know. that's why i added
I have read it now.
For me environmental issues are pretty much paramount, so it's hard to sympathise with someone who dismisses them out of hand as unimportant, as he seems to.
The other thing that really disturbs me about him is his total reversal of views, like a Damascene conversion. Like he thought about something, ditched one conviction, then thought, "ooh, ditching principles is fun. what else can I throw out..." and ending up at totally the opposite end of he political spectrum. the flexibility, it's just too extreme.
Toni Blair may have made a similar journey (if indeed he believed in things in the first place)
Yes, environmental issues are my main concern too. While economic arguments are important, the primary reason for my Remain vote is the need for supranational legislation to deal with issues, primarily environmental, that require the ccordinated efforts of nations. I am extremely wary of those who would simply dismiss these concerns.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
In the setting of a Game show then this is closer to the truth, though the show makers may well want to give away an occasional car. The problem assumes that the host is not trying to manipulate the punter.
Not a viewer of that open the box thing with Noel Edmunds, but I was pointed towards one episode where they rather stupidly had on a post-grad mathematician and previous employee an an analyst at a bookmaker...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
They throw him off the cliff. Each villager, faced with some probability that they have such a flaw and certain death, is better off doing that than risk discovery.
Comments
"We all know that the Remain camp has peddled the politics of fear. But what is the object of their fear? What’s the thing that makes them so scared, so convinced that a litany of social and political horrors will befall Blighty if we pull out of Brussels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, every panicked declaration of the Remain lot comes down to saying, ‘Who knows what the mob will get up to once they’re freed from the rights-protecting, environment-respecting directives of the EU?’ And the closer the referendum gets, the clearer this disdain for the demos is becoming.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/every-pro-eu-argument-boils-down-to-you-cant-trust-the-plebs/
Do they differ to those in force at an election?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3619837/Parents-Jihadi-Jack-charged-terrorism-offences.html
Good...we shouldn't discriminate based upon colour or wealth. Supporting terrorism is disgusting.
I will continue to campaign, donate, fight and vote for a Leave win, which is what I want.
Ironic then that it was not so long ago it was Britain was the only thing that stood between Europe and barbarism.
do you think there is no point in respecting the environment? this is actually my major concern about leave - if it means international agreements on environmental issues are ditched, or become more difficult, then it's a major problem. otherwise, I'm free and easy
Or play with yourself (^_-)
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/monty-hall-simulation-online/
I have always leanings / sympathy towards BOO but I cannot decide if we actually are Better Off Out.
I am seriously considering not voting.
'Hipster coffee' gets Australia hot and frothing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36423824
After a hopelessly ill-judged decision to nominate him (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) a gigantic bunch of interlopers from the far-left, who have never before paid much interest in a moderate centre-left party, paid three quid apiece to elect him, this destroying Labour's electoral chances for a generation.
http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/34UxW06K0FWdTDFb0JFNRg/348s.jpg
Jan-May last year I knocked on thousands of doors, after the initial trepidation I found it fascinating, a sociological experiment, thoroughly enjoyable. The vast majority of people are unfailingly polite, the only people that received any sort of abuse were female, from men, maybe a handful. I admire anybody from any party that has the bottle to go out on the knocker, its humbling and informative.
Where I remain unconvinced is how effective it is, we had a couple of canvassers that were absolute vote losers, no canvassing is better than poor canvassing so be careful who you're out with and what you're trying to achieve.
The Monty Hall problem as a probability tree:-
https://www.nojam.com/post/1126
Switching wins 2:1
Contestant chooses A, Monty opens B. Call this AB. Etc
The issue is that Monty is not allowed to reveal the car. If the car is behind door A but both the Contestant and Monty act randomly then you get the following odds. For ease of comparison will show all odds in sixths.
AB 1/6
AC 1/6
BA 0/6 (not allowed)
BC 2/6
CA 0/6 (not allowed)
CB 2/6
Therefore there are six potential combinations. Two where switching loses, two where switching wins, two that are not permitted due to the hosts restrictions.
The switch winners add up to 4/6 or 2/3
The switch losers add up to 2/6 or 1/3
Elliot had a history of mental problems. He complained to CCHQ, who took no action, and then he was dismissed from his job at Conservative Way Forward.
He then researched suicide methods online before making a choice.
Elliot killed himself by lying down on the track in front of a train.
In any case your argument amounts to trusting the elites to do the right things rather than trusting the British voters to elect the right people to do the right things, which is a view I suppose, but not exactly democratic.
It also leaves the questions that what happens when the elite do the wrong things and you can't do anything about it. Such as the entirely plausible case that the lobbyists for big business at Brussels, which outnumber those in Washington 2:1, manage to get some environmentally damaging regulation passed.
*evil laughter*
As for the door problem, sheesh. Bring back AV discussions!
I have read it now.
For me environmental issues are pretty much paramount, so it's hard to sympathise with someone who dismisses them out of hand as unimportant, as he seems to.
The other thing that really disturbs me about him is his total reversal of views, like a Damascene conversion. Like he thought about something, ditched one conviction, then thought, "ooh, ditching principles is fun. what else can I throw out..." and ending up at totally the opposite end of he political spectrum. the flexibility, it's just too extreme.
Toni Blair may have made a similar journey (if indeed he believed in things in the first place)
In recent years, I've noticed a shed-load of these signs at the ends of station platforms:
http://globalcomment.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/9522909626_aa8dec40a2_k-1024x765.jpg
http://bigstory.ap.org/0274242811894097a9d79f789002aab0
I suppose LondonBob doesn't have to worry...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36423685
Full disclosure: I was once a member (briefly) of CWF about 10 years ago but quit due to the presence of Clarke, Walker and people like him whom my gut told me just weren't very pleasant individuals. At all.
Our host is a cunning host. He has an interest in making sure you choose the wrong door. He knows the location of the prize. If you choose Incorrectly... He simply takes your first choice and gives you the bad news.
However if your original guess was correct... then he offers you the chance to switch. He banks on the fact that the Monty Hall problem is well known enough that you will change. And then think yourself unlucky when you get the goat. In this example... switching is guaranteed failure.
One of the issues with representative democracy is the threshold for nomination. There is no obvious equivalent to "the winner is the one who gets the most votes".
My view is that the values of Labour's activists are a million miles away from those of the 2/3rds of the electorate that are more or less right-wing, and that it would do the Tories no harm if they said in their next manifesto that socialism should be criminalised.
"You're on a game show, and you're given a choice of three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick door no.1. The host, who knows what's behind all three doors, then opens another one, no. 2, to reveal a goat. He then asks whether you want to change your choice to no.3. Should you switch or not?"
Better off: 10% (-1)
Worse off: 23% (+2)
[No diff.]: 45% (-2)
(via YouGov)
The public aren't really buying remains argument..
For me one of the most obscene things about the whole way the EU works is that the elected part, the EU Parliament cannot propose legislation, it does not have "legislative initiative", it only gets to agree or disagree Commission proposals, and modify them within fairly tightly defined limits - Democracy my arse.
This referendum is like World War 1 - two opposite sides in trenches lobbing bombs at each other and neither moving an inch in either direction.
What always surprises (and pleases me) is just how well informed most people are about the debate, and how reasonable in reaching a decision.
There was actually a programme with James May and some random mates who did the equivalent thing 100 times with beer cans, in threes, one of which was vigorously shaken, the other 2 not and they then did the switch/no switch thing and then "hilariously" opened the chosen can over their heads.
100 times is probably not enough for good enough proof (ask a pollster lol) but it came out at much closer to 1/3 spraying everywhere than 1/2 even if it wasn't satisfyingly 33 or 34 out of 100 IIRC
Sorry Scott you are wrong. Imagine if there were a thousand doors, does that help? Host shows you 998 goats, leaves one door closed. Do you really think that the chances are still 50:50 that your 1 in a thousand pick initial was right? Is it not clear now that the one door out of 999 the host chose not to open is, er, the one with the car?
Gotta switch...
Obviously understanding the nonsense of picking "lucky" boxes etc...he just simply went, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...and at each offer was doing some back of an envelope calculations in relation to EV of taking the deal, which resulted in about half way through opening the boxes (and very early in the show) saying deal.
It can be said that it didn't make for a very interesting game show.
It might not win the war though.
(Mind you it would have been more interesting if he'd picked, 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17, 19 to start off.)
My general observation is that in terms of serious activists Labour are angry, Conservatives arrogant, my lot bonkers, Greens and Libs dreamers.
You could argue that such a trend was there for the Welsh assembly votes in 1979 and 1997, but really there are too few data points except if you are a complete headbanger.
Why do they draw a trend line on some graphs but simply join up the points on others?
It's true that on none of these graphs is the red dot higher than the trend band for the polls - it's always basically in that band, which maybe conveys the subliminal message "polls are good" - but the whole approach collapses because none of these referendums was viewed as primarily about an issue on which all major parties had crapped on the wishes of the majority of the population for decades. There is more psychology going on in this referendum than in previous ones. Many people have been told it's dirty to say what they think about immigration.
Quality considerations should tell the "quants" that this referendum is different.
I remember the Sunday Times once ran a "leak" from some ministry or another in which a civil servant had prepared for his minister a short paper on the probability of slipping on another "banana skin", informed by his understanding of the Poisson distribution.
(He's also underpricing his experience on the show.)
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/children-and-young-people/news/75622/former-ukip-councillor-ordered-pay-
Big bill.
A remote tribe is discovered by an explorer. They are extremely intelligent and beautiful but they also have a fairly common inherited defect which gives some people a distinctive flaw in the iris of the eye.
They also have some strange cultural and religious practices.
If a tribesman or woman discovers they have the flaw in the iris of their eye they must commit suicide the following morning by throwing themselves off the cliff. Telling someone they have the flaw in the iris is strictly forbidden (under penalty of death), and there are no mirrors, or similar objects for people to discover the flaw in themselves. There are in fact 20 tribespeople who - unknown to themselves, but visible to all others - have the flaw in the iris.
One day the explorer calls the tribe together and makes the following announcement.
"I see there is at least one person who has a flaw in their iris..."
What happens next?
So what, well over half of Labour's supporters believe in an everlasting Magic Money Tree.
At the moment, I'd put the chance of LEAVE at 49%.
But that could change, of course.
Or are you not betting on this market?