Political middlemen and dart-throwing chimps

Martha Gill's "Irrational Animals" column.

Predicting the weather was once quite an interesting profession, needing skill in reading the instruments, intuition in deciphering the skies and years of experience in putting it all together. Now it’s the kind of job Nick Cage’s character would be given in a heavy-handed satire of the American dream, possibly also starring Michael Caine. We don’t need these skilled individuals any more – computers do all that. We just need an algorithm and a mouthpiece.

And so to Nate Silver – one of the biggest winners of the US presidential election. As the race neared its end, becoming “too close to call”, with money and opinions frantically changing hands, the New York Times blogger was calmly and correctly predicting voter outcome in every single state. He had what others didn’t – a formula to convert polling information into probabilities – and it turned out to be dead-on. He was not alone in getting it right but he was among the few. Many failed spectacularly.

Here’s Newt Gingrich on Fox News on 25 October: “I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 [per cent] Romney, over 300 electoral votes, and the Republicans will pick up the Senate. I base that . . . on just years and years of experience.” And here’s the GOP strategist Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal on 31 October: “It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favour Mitt Romney.”

These were not small errors. These people were standing in pre-hurricane wind and predicting sunshine. Are pundits more often wrong than not, or was it just this particular election that threw them? And how often do the statistics spewed out by experts hit the mark? One study found a statistic for it.

Algorithm blues

In the 1980s, a psychologist called Philip Tetlock took a group of journalists, foreign policy experts and economists – 284 of them – and spent the next two decades bombarding them with questions: would the dotcom bubble burst? Would George Bush be re-elected? How would apartheid end?

After analysing 82,361 predictions, Tetlock found that his experts performed worse than random chance. In short, they could have been beaten by dart-throwing chimps.

The reason was confidence. Tetlock found that the more often pundits appeared on TV, the more likely they were to be wrong. Their strong opinions were causing them to ignore dissenting facts or explain them away, leaving them trapped, he said, in the cage of their preconceptions.

Now, semi-expert middlemen are being squeezed out as the focus shifts to minute data analysis. Silver is one of the winners of this change but on the losing side is a whole industry of political forecasters. And it’s not just true of politics. Finance has been moving that way for a while. In UBS’s recent swath of job cuts, at least one trader, David Gallers, was replaced with an algorithm.

Difficult times for the old school, but what of the new? Silver expressed his concerns to the Wall Street Journal: “You don’t want to influence the system you are trying to forecast.” Only one problem with the new machines, then – accuracy. They’re so good that they might start controlling the weather.

Newt Gingrich opining away on Fox News. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

This article first appeared in the 19 November 2012 issue of the New Statesman, The plot against the BBC

Getty.
Show Hide image

Anita Sarkeesian: “I don’t like the words ‘troll’ and ‘bully’”

The media critic and GamerGate target tells the Guardian that online harassers need a rebrand.

Anita Sarkeesian has been under attack for an entire year. She has received bomb threats, rape threats, gun threats, and threats that events she was due to speak at would be attacked. Her home address was circulated in online gaming communities. Her crime? She started a Kickstarter campaign for her YouTube channel, Feminist Frequency, to fund a series called “Tropes vs Women in Video Games”, which catalogues the sexist stereotypes and attitudes in gaming. 

So overall, it's pretty unsurprising that Sarkeesian doesn't call her attackers "trolls" or "bullies", with their comfy associations of schoolyards and fairytale bridges. 

Speaking in an interview with Jessica Valenti, published in the Guardian this weekend, Sarkeesian explains her reasoning:

“I don’t like the words ‘troll’ and ‘bully’ – it feels too childish. This is harassment and abuse."

She also implies that these words tie into a delusion entertained by some of the men themselves – that the abuse is just a bit of fun. Yet whatever the intent, Sarkeesian argues, “it still perpetuates all of the harmful myths attached to that language and those words”.

The interview also covers GamerGate controversy as a whole and Sarkeesian’s rise to prominence as someone willing to speak publicly about the abuse she has receved. As she points out, however,

“There are a lot of people who are being targeted who don’t get the attention I do. Women of colour and trans women, in particular, are not getting media attention and not getting the support they need.”

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.