I've recently noticed that my early writing about comparisons of malarkey scores, which I report as ratios, are easily misinterpreted. For example, I might say that candidate X spews 17% more malarkey than candidate Y, or that PolitiFact might have a 17% bias against party Z over party W. What I really mean is that the malarkey score is 17% larger for candidate X or party Z, not that there is a difference in 17 points along the malarkey scale. The confusion arises from the fact that I report comparisons as ratios. I'm not going to do that anymore. Why? Because if I report comparisons as differences instead, it makes more sense given that the malarkey score ranges from 0 to 100, and could be interpreted as the percentage of one's utterances that are malarkey-laden. I'll make the changes to the side bar reports sometime this week. Add Comment |
aboutMalark-O-blog published news and commentary about the statistical analysis of the comparative truthfulness of the 2012 presidential and vice presidential candidates. It has since closed down while its author makes bigger plans. authorBrash Equilibrium is an evolutionary anthropologist and writer. His real name is Benjamin Chabot-Hanowell. His wife calls him Babe. His daughter calls him Papa. what is malarkey?It's a polite word for bullshit. Here, it's a measure of falsehood. 0 means you're truthful on average. 100 means you're 100% full of malarkey. Details.
what is simulated malarkey?Fact checkers only rate a small sample of the statements that politicians make. How uncertain are we about the real truthfulness of politicians? To find out, treat fact checker report cards like an experiment, and use random number generators to repeat that experiment a lot of times to see all the possible outcomes. Details.
malark-O-glimpseCan you tell the difference between the 2012 presidential election tickets from just a glimpse at their simulated malarkey score distributions?
fuzzy portraits of malarkeySimulated distributions of malarkey for each 2012 presidential candidate with 95% confidence interval on either side of the simulated average malarkey score. White line at half truthful. (Rounded to nearest whole number.)
fuzzy portraits of ticket malarkeySimulated distributions of collated and average malarkey for each 2012 presidential election ticket, with 95% confidence interval labeled on either side of the simulated malarkey score. White line at half truthful. (Rounded to nearest whole number.)
ComparisonsSimulated probability distributions of the difference the malarkey scores of one 2012 presidential candidate or party and another, with 95% confidence interval labeled on either side of simulated mean malarkey. Blue bars are when Democrats spew more malarkey, red when Republicans do. White line and purple bar at equal malarkey. (Rounded to nearest hundredth.)
2012 prez debatespresidential debatesSimulated probability distribution of the malarkey spewed by individual 2012 presidential candidates during debates, with 95% confidence interval labeled on either side of simulated mean malarkey. White line at half truthful. (Rounded to nearest whole number.)
aggregate 2012 prez debateDistributions of malarkey for collated 2012 presidential debate report cards and the average presidential debate malarkey score.
2012 vice presidential debateoverall 2012 debate performanceMalarkey score from collated report card comprising all debates, and malarkey score averaged over candidates on each party's ticket.
(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) 2012 debate self comparisons
Simulated probability distributions of the difference in malarkey that a 2012 presidential candidate spews normally compared to how much they spewed during a debate (or aggregate debate), with 95% confidence interval labeled on either side of the simulated mean difference. Light bars mean less malarkey was spewed during the debate than usual. Dark bars less. White bar at equal malarkey. (Rounded to nearest hundredth.)
individual 2012 presidential debates(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) aggregate 2012 presidential debate(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) vice presidential debate(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) 2012 opponent comparisonsSimulated probability distributions of the difference in malarkey between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate during a debate, with 95% confidence interval labeled on either side of simulated mean comparison. Blue bars are when Democrats spew more malarkey, red when Republicans do. White bar at equal malarkey. (Rounded to nearest hundredth.)
individual 2012 presidential debates(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) aggregate 2012 presidential debate(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) vice presidential debate(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.) overall 2012 debate comparisonParty comparison of 2012 presidential ticket members' collective and individual average malarkey scores during debates.
(Probabilities rounded to nearest percent.)
2012 prez debates1st presidential debate
2nd presidential debate (town hall)
3rd presidential debate
collated presidential debates
average presidential debate
vice presidential debate
collated debates overall
average debate overall
the raw dealYou've come this far. Why not just check out the raw data Maslark-O-Meter is using? I promise you: it is as riveting as a phone book.
archivesJune 2013 malark-O-dexAll |
I've recently noticed that my early writing about comparisons of malarkey scores, which I report as ratios, are easily misinterpreted. For example, I might say that candidate X spews 17% more malarkey than candidate Y, or that PolitiFact might have a 17% bias against party Z over party W. What I really mean is that the malarkey score is 17% larger for candidate X or party Z, not that there is a difference in 17 points along the malarkey scale. The confusion arises from the fact that I report comparisons as ratios. I'm not going to do that anymore. Why? Because if I report comparisons as differences instead, it makes more sense given that the malarkey score ranges from 0 to 100, and could be interpreted as the percentage of one's utterances that are malarkey-laden. I'll make the changes to the side bar reports sometime this week. Add Comment |