The Signal and the Noise â€� Reader Q&A

Questions About The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Failâ€”But Some Don't

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Signal and the Noise, please sign up.

Answered Questions (3)

is this good? or is it another noise adding to many of those books making common knowledge as some kind newly found magic?

Dipu It is worth a read to understand the limitations of predictions - that is areas where predictions can be made successfully and where it does not have â€¦m´Ç°ù±ðIt is worth a read to understand the limitations of predictions - that is areas where predictions can be made successfully and where it does not have much chance of succeeding. (less)

flag

I was about to pick this book, but I became a little skeptical after what happened with Nate and 538 in 2016. I could be wrong because I don't have much information on what (and why it) happened, so I am not actually judging him. Should I read this? Is this book reliable?

Kirill Petrovsky I watched the election closely (as well as 538's forecasts) and they were quite correct. On election day they had Trump at approx 30% of winning - andâ€¦m´Ç°ù±ðI watched the election closely (as well as 538's forecasts) and they were quite correct. On election day they had Trump at approx 30% of winning - and that scenario fulfilled itself.
So I'd say that this book will teach you exactly that - what predictions mean and how to understand them.(less)

flag

In chapter 1, there's a paragraph describing the housing boom in the 1950s. The following facts are stated in it: - homeownership rate increased, from 44% to 62%, over 2 decades (1940-1960) - population grew by 20% per decade conclusion: homeowners increased by 80% during the decade Do these figures make any sense? I can't wrap my head around how the auther reached this conclusion.

Xavaqenia Note: I have not read this book yet (though I plan to do so, and am a big fan of Nate Silver) but I thought I could help.

I just ran the numbers. Here â€¦m´Ç°ù±ðNote: I have not read this book yet (though I plan to do so, and am a big fan of Nate Silver) but I thought I could help.

I just ran the numbers. Here is my math:

First of all, if we assume that there are 10,000 people in America in 1940 (to make the math easier) and 44% of them have a home, then at this point 4,400 people own homes. Then, if the total population increases by 20% each decade for two decades, the total population of America in 1960 is 14,400. Now, 62% percent of Americans own homes, which is 8,928 people in our model.

If we now take 8,928 as a percentage of 4,400 we get 202% percent. Thus, a 102% increase in homeownership over two years. 80% percent seems to be a conservative estimate, if I interpreted your question correctly.

Hope that helps!

(less)

flag