Sorry, I have not been following his latest work. Last I heard was that he'd made some predictions on the Middle-East - specifically Iran. Let me know if you find the answer to your question... it would have been a helpful one. BTB, there are more generalized models that are not so much predictive as they are *epigenetic* and utilized for *long term strategic planning...* still, the idea of "weighted variables" plays an important role in the whole instrumentality of these models.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:01 AM, aruzinsky <[email protected]>wrote: > I note this is "political and foreign-policy forecasts." Can you > summarize recent forecasts made with the Bruce Bueno de Mesquita > model? Was Obama's presidential election and the house turnover to > Republicans predicted? > > On Nov 15, 3:04 pm, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Good points all, but when in the throes of evaluating a model's > relative > > > > impetus, validity, reliability, and areas of applicability, there are > also > > the specific fields(s) being investigated, & the supposed theoretical > > breadth & depth of the individual model's coverage to be considered. For > > example, you may be acquainted with the statistical & hierarchical-based > > model of *Bruce Bueno de Mesquita*... I'd provide some links, but it is > just > > as simple for you to "Google." >> While he offers some methodological > > touchstones, he chooses *not* to reveal the model's proprietary > "breakdown," > > as it does evidently help him to earn a significant part of his bread & > > butter. So, I guess there is no way to actually peruse his working > model. > > > > Anyway, he freely suggests that the principles upon which he relies are > > nothing new, but the ways in which his categorization elements and vector > > matrices (emphases placed) are produced is. Oddly, despite the seeming > > simplicity (relatively speaking) of his model, its predictive reliability > > has no modern rival... I encourage you to check him out... > > > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:59 AM, aruzinsky > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 10:52 pm, Scott Mayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >... > > > > I am skeptical of today's dependence on induction in physics with > > > > contrary and contradictory views on deduction and normal logical > > > > method, how and when proponents choose and choose not to use it. > > > >... > > > > > And, where does statistics fit in with your perception of reality? > > > > > Explanation without prediction is just entertainment. All > > > entertainment is frivolous, therefore explanation without prediction > > > is frivolous. In prediction, one uses a model. Have you taken a poll > > > of physicists to see what percentage believe that their models are > > > completely accurate predictors? I am going to guess that you will > > > find almost none. > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
