A model isn't reality, whether we're talking politics or God

Since my mind is so focused on the presidential race here in the United States -- we're a week away from November 5, election day -- I figured I might as well go with the mental flow and write a post about a subject that is germane to both politics and God: modeling. 

Not the sort of modeling where women or men put on designer clothes and strut down a walkway in front of an audience. The sort where a human understanding of some complex aspect of reality is fashioned into a model that attempts to reflect its nature.

This is a subject that first interested me back in the 1970s, when I spent two years working on a Ph.D. in Systems Science. (I finished the coursework, but then became a Ph.D. dropout.) I took several courses in modeling and simulation, a nascent field given the limited computer capabilities at that time.

One theme of that coursework was that a model shows us how the model-maker(s) view the world, thereby making critiques of that viewpoint easier, since the model's assumptions are more clearly visible than the often vague beliefs of we humans are.

But there are other motivations for model-making, whether of the mathematical, conceptual, or any other variety. Yesterday The Atlantic had an article by Brian Klaas, "The Truth About Polling: We Don't Know What We Think We Know About How Americans Will Vote." (Klaas is the author of Fluke, a book I wrote several posts about, including this one.)

Here's how the article starts out. 

Well, it’s that time again: Millions of Americans are stress-eating while clicking “Refresh” on 538’s presidential forecast, hoping beyond hope that the little red or blue line will have made a tiny tick upward. Some may be clutching themselves in the fetal position, chanting under their breath: “There’s a good new poll out of Pennsylvania.”

The stakes of this election are sky-high, and its outcome is not knowable in advance—a combination that most of us find deeply discomfiting. People crave certainty, and there’s just one place to look for it: in the data. Earlier humans might have turned to oracles or soothsayers; we have Nate Silver. But the truth is that polling—and the models that rely primarily on polling to forecast the election result—cannot confidently predict what will happen on November 5.

It's true that we crave certainty, though in my case I'd term this a craving for a high probability of a certain outcome. Sure, I'd be even happier with 100% certainty, but I realize this rarely is possible beyond very simple and short-term phenomena, and really not even then.

I mean, whenever I decide to type certain words on my keyboard, I'm able to do that. However, there's a small probability that I could suffer a stroke or heart attack at any moment that would make it impossible for me to type the words that just entered my mind. 

Given how important the presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is, and how much I want Harris to win, I do indeed look at three election prediction models every day. In fact, with the election so close, several times a day, since the models are being updated more frequently. And my mood does indeed rise and fall when I see that a model has either increased or decreased the probability of Harris winning.

(The three I follow are Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin (you can't see the actual forecast without subscribing to Silver, which I do), FiveThirtyEight, and the Economist. 

What Klaas does in his article is ably discuss all the ways that political polls and models make assumptions that are better than pure guesswork, yet are a long way from reflecting the messy, complex, chaotic reality of how voters decide who to cast a ballot for. 

And this is concerning an aspect of reality that is indisputably real. People truly do make decisions about whether to vote in a presidential election, and if they decide to do this, who to vote for. These people can be contacted through a variety of means, though this is difficult for pollsters to do, a source of error. 

Polls also are necessarily a reflection of the past. Yesterday a speaker at a major Trump campaign event insulted Puerto Rico, calling it a floating island of garbage. This caused many Puerto Rico immigrants, who number in the millions, to get angry. How this will affect their vote for Trump or Harris remains to be seen, but some effect is certain.

If it is so difficult to model a fairly well-defined physical phenomenon, who Americans will choose to become president, modeling God and the supernatural is both hugely more difficult and hugely easier.

More difficult, because our conceptual models of God and the supernatural lack demonstrable evidence. Hugely easier, because that lack of evidence means that anyone can come up with their own model of God and the supernatural. 

And while the election prediction models will be tested for their accuracy once the results of the presidential race are known, this isn't the case for models of God and the supernatural, which are the foundation of the world's many religions. They never are tested for accuracy, because there is no demonstrable evidence that what they purport to explain even exists.

We shouldn't take election prediction models very seriously, but they are much more accurate reflections of reality than conceptual models of God and the supernatural.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

"Since my mind is so focused on the presidential race here in the United States -- we're a week away from November 5, election day"

As it should be! People often obsess pointlessly over elections, but this time no amount of obsessing would be over the top. Because the danger that the US is faced with at this time --- and, by extension, the larger free world as well, to an extent --- is unique, this time.

Trump's a blowhard. He's ...well, Trump. A circus clown, if ever there was one. So I suppose it is possible that all the demented things that we all fear he might do, that he's himself claimed he'll do, that he's already tried doing once, and the vile things that others cook up, via Project 2025 for instance, that he doesn't just distance himself from --- all of them may just be hot air, and it is possible that once Trump gets his toy, the shiny Presidentship, to play with, then he'll forget about this, and stay content to let this be his last term. ...On the other hand, he may do exactly what he's indicated he might do! ...And, who knows, he might even do worse! ...So that, the risk to the US polity this time is unique!

Unique also in the sense that, should Trump lose this time, then probably the danger will be past. I don't think even the spineless brainwashed Trump worshipers will once again get that fat old fool to represent them next time! And whoever is the candidate next time, be it Vance, or any other ---- while they may try to do all of those other vile things, including the horrible abortion thing as well, but I don't think anyone has authoritarian, dictatorial pretensions like Trump does. Nor do I think the inexplicable spell Trump seems to have cast on his spineless brainless worshipers will extend to his successor/s, I don't think the spineless witless lot of despicables will be willing to hail him in as their next Messiah and King, like they do the orange turd. ...So that, once this immediate danger is past, then it's possibly going to be politics as usual. This existential threat to the US, and by extension to the wider free world, will probably be past, once this immediate danger is averted.

So that, these few days, no amount of obsessing would be overdoing it. Every right-thinking American should be sure to turn up to vote this time. And do what they can to make sure that other right-thinking Americans do not neglect to vote.

[Appreciative Reader]

As far as models, haha, yes, you're right, Brian, one should never lose sight of the fact that the model is not reality!

I have worked quite a bit with models, built them up myself, sometimes very complex ones with a whole team working on it --- financial models, economic models, that sort of thing. Without a shadow of a doubt they're a marvelous tool, and often do get great results. ...But I agree 100% with you, people sometimes get so caught up in their models that they sometimes forget that all it is is a model, a limited and entirely fallible representation of reality. So that precision does not necessarily translate to accuracy.

And how much more does that apply to models of larger reality, that science deals in. Like the BB, like the rest of it.

...And, heh, yes, the joke version of those models of reality as well, including the God model. (Haha, theology can sometimes go crazy, and go tweaking their model for all they're worth! RCC theology would be a classic example of this.)

...We're fortunate to be living at this time. Because a few centuries back, there really would be no reason to dismiss these wildly wrong models in favor of more correct models --- not that there'd be any very detailed correct models around at all. ...We'd have no reason, back then, to believe we'd not end up being crazy superstitious oafs ourselves --- because there'd be no clear way to separate the wheat from the chaff, and not much wheat going around at all!

...Which is why I think it is such a tragedy when people today ---- despite all of the information and knowledge so easily available now ---- nevertheless, in such numbers, continue to believe all manner of ignorant superstitious nonsense, and in such large numbers.

[sant64]

Betting on presidential elections has a long history. In the last 15 elections, the betting odds chose the winner 11 times. 3 of those results were too close to call, and only 1 was wrong. Therefore betting sites are at least as relatable a predictor of future results as is any polster or political prognosticator.

There are reasons for this. Any better site, whether of horse races or football games, picks its winners without any trace of sentiment. The better odds are calculated by several objective factors, the biggest being how much money is being bet on a particular side. That's because the "house" sets odds per their risk of losing money on the outcome. If twice as much money is being bet on Candidate A to win, that means the house must put the odds in Candidate A's favor to avoid a loss.

The flaw with the betting sites as predictors is that a "whale," a rich bettor, could skew the odds by making a huge bet on a candidate. Some wonder if Elon Musk is pumping millions into the betting sites to favor Trump?

Better sites such as Polymarket https://polymarket.com/ and Oddschecker give Donald Trump the advantage over Kalama Harris. But if you ask me, the election is anything but a sure thing for Trump, despite all the help the current president is giving of late to the Trump campaign.

[Ron E.]

The main difference between political, science and (if it could really be a model) religious models is one of reliable information. I’d dismiss any sort of religious models first as by their very nature they have to rely on beliefs, ideas and various man invented concepts along with hopes, fears, faith, human insecurities and the uncertainties of life. Religious ‘models’ merely ‘fix’ or attempt to make their assertions seem valid.
Political models regarding the outcome of elections are presumably made from state and national polls, along with political and economic data from past elections and I assume in the USA, from samples taken from groups of people. With the present situation in America, such polling points to a 50-50 split – more or less!

Brians states: - “We shouldn't take election prediction models very seriously, but they are much more accurate reflections of reality than conceptual models of God and the supernatural.” Agreed, of course.

With regard to the models provided by science they are arrived at by analysing data from past information, data from around the world, from weather, oceanic behaviour, exhaustive research – and not least of all, current earth and oceanic trends have much more realistic and believable models.

Which reflects a sad aspect of the present USA’s presidential race where (as far as I hear) neither Trump or Harris says much on climate change. I guess they reflect what is important to many Americans such as the economy, health care, crime, gun policy, immigration, abortion and gun policy – with climate change way down the list.

It’s much the same here in the UK as in the USA, people feel somewhat powerless to do anything about it. We have a few politicians who believe that science will provide a solution, one that won’t necessitate any a major adjustment to our usual consumption (so, best to ignore it – unless it comes banging on our doors). And Trump – well, he apparently still believes it to be a hoax in spite of all the tragic, climate related happenings now regularly occurring around the world.

So much for models. Where they are predictive and point to certain trends, it seems people only take notice of them where there is the promise of some personal benefit. After all, who would want to give up anything from their usual lifestyle – it’s not the nature of things.

[sant64]

Back when most of us here were in high school, the scientific model of climate science had no vision of global warming. In fact, many scientists suspected that the earth was getting cooler. Now we know better (?)

Global warming as a political cause is fraught with problems. That's because crusades against global warming are all at severe odds with reality.

Green energy is nowhere near adequate for society's needs. Not even close. Yet the caring and non-fascist presidents demand that everyone must drive an EV, ignoring the fact that electricity powering these vehicles is generated from fossil fuels. Just one climate boondoggle amount many, amounting to a waste of billions of dollars many times over. And all for feeling good about making happy with the model. This is an example of how so-called rationality resembles medieval thinking.

I'm leaving out how more than half the planet couldn't care less about our attempts to stave off climate armageddon. They will continue to build their coal plants no matter what we do, no matter what austerities we assign ourselves. "But if we only signed Paris!" More irrational medieval thinking.

"Electricity is so precious" say the climate cognoscenti. These same folk are, of course, all for AI, which sucks up juice like nothing else. They say the use of electricity is some shameful shit, but the volts for AI are totally worth it. Ditto for crypto mining. Medieval.

Here's a related model: People will use as much energy as they can get. That's a rock-solid axiom, true for the last several hundred years. Despite all the green initiatives, everyone is using more energy than they did 30 years ago. And this will continue.

Taking all this together, some of us aren't impressed with candidates making speeches about climate change. We see these appeals to have far more to do with politics than with the unalterable reality of how human societies function.

[Ron E.]

Sant64. You make some valid points re global warming though not so much about the scientific models that I spoke of that predict(ed) it. Even so, you have some points that “… half the planet couldn't care less about our attempts to stave off climate armageddon.” And yes, people are using more energy. Also: - “… people aren't impressed with candidates making speeches about climate change.”

It was around 2030 that scientists reported that global warming could cause Antarctic ice sheets to melt and 30 years later the world’s first accurate computer model of planet Earth’s climate and an accurate model of melting ice caps. The point being that scientific models are more accurate and reflect reality rather than religious and political ones.

All in all, you are probably right that people don’t care about climate change, it is too far removed from people’s everyday lives and realities; unless of course you are one of the casualties of catastrophic floods, fires, droughts, severe storms, rising sea levels etc.

Yes, it is difficult for candidates to talk of policies regarding climate change, mainly because there are so many conspiracy stories floating about that only a few clear-sighted people would listen. And yes, the way human society’s function says much about the hedonistic almost unconscious ways that people conduct their lives.

It wouldn’t surprise me that where more of the planet Earth becomes uninhabitable and resources be-come scarcer, there will be many (like the Trump’s of this world) who survive quite nicely in their little enclaves.

[um]

@ vRon e.

Whatever exists has only local power, local understanding, local senses.
The trees , the animals and humans as well

Everything that exists is defined by the local.

Humans, their body, their mind and their senses are all made to survive in local surroundings. Their inventions have allowed them to expand the reach of their body and senses, by car, telescopes etce but their mind is not equipped to process information on a global scale ...

All their expansive inventions have had always the character of "scaling down" ..bring the information down to local level so that they can be handled. ...Researching plants, plants having maybe 100 or more components, they had to reduce and use only what they call the "active ingredients" of a plant

So those that want to govern the world have to bring down their information to the local level, make a decision and act and by necessity that must be wrong.

Humans are not made to take responsibility for the affairs of the world, universe etc ...so in the end nature will correct itself. and humans included

Coffee time and a piece of apple pie ..to forget about what I wrote.

[um]

And ...

Yesterday I came back from a visit to France, taking another route than usual, passing through a densely industrial area, with many new roads, complex road crossings etc ...and ...miles of traffic jams.

For years seeing this intensity of traffic has made a deep impression on me as the awareness of it , tells me something about society, culture humanity .. it always had the feeling of "wrong".

for there must me something [terrible] wrong with any government, society or culture accepting this phenomena for more that and incidental affair.

It seems to me that in order to correct this the government has to say "NO" to certain
initiatives, activities of its inhabitants and failing to do so and in acting that way behaves as a parent that does not correct a child,, out of fear not to be appreciated by the child and in doing so spoils the child.

They call it progress, ..progress for who???
Are all these people trapped in these activities of work, driving home etc living a better human live than their ancestors?

Has all these inventions brought more freedom for humans to spend according their own choice or have they lost almost all their human freedom, their dignity, and live in "slavery"in their own artificial nature by the name of culture., alienated from their natural being??

[um]

Humans did NOT ...CREATE ...the climate crisis etc
It was the consequence of their actions
and
as they are not the CREATORS of it\they CANNOT solve the problem.