Your Use Of Data For Any Purpose But Validating David Brooks’s Lazy Intuitions Infuriates David Brooks
Andrew Gelman gets it exactly right about David Brooks’s attempt to lash back at being thoroughly humiliated by Nate Silver without responding directly. Anybody who reads sportswriting has seen Brooks’s argument a million times. In its purest form, it can be found in blog posts by blogger Murray Chass. You spend five paragraphs railing against geeks in their basements with their sliderules and VIC-20s and why don’t they watch the damn game rather than doing their math homework, and then the rest of your
blog post online column arguing that Pitcher A should win the Cy Young award over the much better Pitcher B not because you think Pitcher A is better but because Pitcher A has a higher total in a nearly useless statistical category you remember in a fond haze of nostalgia from your days as a child when a win was a win and you’d get five bees for a quarter and Warren Harding brought some real integrity to the White House, dammit.