Mixing
Why are The Simpsons (TV series) so apparently successful in “predicting†the future?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
It has been widely commented in the yellow and not so yellow press that The Simpsons (the TV series) have repeatedly predicted the future. Comprehensive online articles about it are here and here. If you google "simpsons predict the future" you get millions of hits and videos.
Perhaps the most remarkable "prediction" (at least to me) is Trump as US president (made in 2000!). The latest seems to be the legalisation of Cannabis in Canada.
The question is, why this apparent success?
My guess is that, (i) The Simpsons make a lot of "predictions" (rather, scenario building), (ii) statistically speaking, the proportion of hits is actually very low (not that I have compute it). The apparent "success" is just a cognitive bias.
statistics-in-media
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
It has been widely commented in the yellow and not so yellow press that The Simpsons (the TV series) have repeatedly predicted the future. Comprehensive online articles about it are here and here. If you google "simpsons predict the future" you get millions of hits and videos.
Perhaps the most remarkable "prediction" (at least to me) is Trump as US president (made in 2000!). The latest seems to be the legalisation of Cannabis in Canada.
The question is, why this apparent success?
My guess is that, (i) The Simpsons make a lot of "predictions" (rather, scenario building), (ii) statistically speaking, the proportion of hits is actually very low (not that I have compute it). The apparent "success" is just a cognitive bias.
statistics-in-media
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
1
+1 because (a) I want to reward questions that are unique and (b) there is likely an apt "model" you could formulate to explain this
– Mark White
49 mins ago
5
Did anyone count the times that prediction is wrong?
– a_statistician
46 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
It has been widely commented in the yellow and not so yellow press that The Simpsons (the TV series) have repeatedly predicted the future. Comprehensive online articles about it are here and here. If you google "simpsons predict the future" you get millions of hits and videos.
Perhaps the most remarkable "prediction" (at least to me) is Trump as US president (made in 2000!). The latest seems to be the legalisation of Cannabis in Canada.
The question is, why this apparent success?
My guess is that, (i) The Simpsons make a lot of "predictions" (rather, scenario building), (ii) statistically speaking, the proportion of hits is actually very low (not that I have compute it). The apparent "success" is just a cognitive bias.
statistics-in-media
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
It has been widely commented in the yellow and not so yellow press that The Simpsons (the TV series) have repeatedly predicted the future. Comprehensive online articles about it are here and here. If you google "simpsons predict the future" you get millions of hits and videos.
Perhaps the most remarkable "prediction" (at least to me) is Trump as US president (made in 2000!). The latest seems to be the legalisation of Cannabis in Canada.
The question is, why this apparent success?
My guess is that, (i) The Simpsons make a lot of "predictions" (rather, scenario building), (ii) statistically speaking, the proportion of hits is actually very low (not that I have compute it). The apparent "success" is just a cognitive bias.
statistics-in-media
statistics-in-media
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
asked 52 mins ago
luchonacho
1,2082927
1,2082927
1
+1 because (a) I want to reward questions that are unique and (b) there is likely an apt "model" you could formulate to explain this
– Mark White
49 mins ago
5
Did anyone count the times that prediction is wrong?
– a_statistician
46 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
+1 because (a) I want to reward questions that are unique and (b) there is likely an apt "model" you could formulate to explain this
– Mark White
49 mins ago
5
Did anyone count the times that prediction is wrong?
– a_statistician
46 mins ago
1
1
+1 because (a) I want to reward questions that are unique and (b) there is likely an apt "model" you could formulate to explain this
– Mark White
49 mins ago
+1 because (a) I want to reward questions that are unique and (b) there is likely an apt "model" you could formulate to explain this
– Mark White
49 mins ago
5
5
Did anyone count the times that prediction is wrong?
– a_statistician
46 mins ago
Did anyone count the times that prediction is wrong?
– a_statistician
46 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Quick thoughts:
Let's pretend—instead of scenario-building or making jokes—each of their plot lines are actual predictions.
They make a lot of predictions, so their Type I error is very high, but their type II error is also very low. If every creative choice is making a prediction AND they have been around for decades, then their show is similar to a medical test that almost always says you have whatever disease you are testing for: You will almost never miss a positive case, but you will be telling a lot of people that they have a disease which they do not have.
People probably only consider a subset of scenarios ("predictions") that are feasible. If the Simpson's were visited by aliens, nobody would consider this a prediction—because we know the odds of it happening are very low. So the universe of predictions we are considering is highly correlated with the prior probability that they will come true—this is stacking the deck in favor of the Simpsons.
The writers of the Simpsons are smart people that also live in the same society in which they are making their "predictions." They are trying to be funny, so what they do, in a Bayesian sense, is construct funny situations that are not assuredly going to happen (these are boring predictions) and are not never going to happen (these are absurd predictions). So again we see the prior probability of these things happen stacking the deck toward the Simpson's being correct: If they write about things with a solid-ish probability of happening (like Canada legalizing weed), then we shouldn't be too surprised when their predictions are correct.
There is no time limit on their predictions. This gives us an unlimited amount of "trials" (let's say the unit of analysis is days or elections or news cycles or celebrity careers, etc.), and all we ever need to do is hit truth once and the Simpsons are "correct."
When you consider all of these together, we can see that making a ton of predictions over an unlimited number of trials where you only have to hit once to be "correct," and people define "success" by ignoring Type I errors and shaping the universe of possible as things with only some probability of occurring, and the creators themselves generally make predictions in areas that have some prior probability of occurring—we can get to the conclusion that the Simpsons can "predict the future."
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Quick thoughts:
Let's pretend—instead of scenario-building or making jokes—each of their plot lines are actual predictions.
They make a lot of predictions, so their Type I error is very high, but their type II error is also very low. If every creative choice is making a prediction AND they have been around for decades, then their show is similar to a medical test that almost always says you have whatever disease you are testing for: You will almost never miss a positive case, but you will be telling a lot of people that they have a disease which they do not have.
People probably only consider a subset of scenarios ("predictions") that are feasible. If the Simpson's were visited by aliens, nobody would consider this a prediction—because we know the odds of it happening are very low. So the universe of predictions we are considering is highly correlated with the prior probability that they will come true—this is stacking the deck in favor of the Simpsons.
The writers of the Simpsons are smart people that also live in the same society in which they are making their "predictions." They are trying to be funny, so what they do, in a Bayesian sense, is construct funny situations that are not assuredly going to happen (these are boring predictions) and are not never going to happen (these are absurd predictions). So again we see the prior probability of these things happen stacking the deck toward the Simpson's being correct: If they write about things with a solid-ish probability of happening (like Canada legalizing weed), then we shouldn't be too surprised when their predictions are correct.
There is no time limit on their predictions. This gives us an unlimited amount of "trials" (let's say the unit of analysis is days or elections or news cycles or celebrity careers, etc.), and all we ever need to do is hit truth once and the Simpsons are "correct."
When you consider all of these together, we can see that making a ton of predictions over an unlimited number of trials where you only have to hit once to be "correct," and people define "success" by ignoring Type I errors and shaping the universe of possible as things with only some probability of occurring, and the creators themselves generally make predictions in areas that have some prior probability of occurring—we can get to the conclusion that the Simpsons can "predict the future."
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Quick thoughts:
Let's pretend—instead of scenario-building or making jokes—each of their plot lines are actual predictions.
They make a lot of predictions, so their Type I error is very high, but their type II error is also very low. If every creative choice is making a prediction AND they have been around for decades, then their show is similar to a medical test that almost always says you have whatever disease you are testing for: You will almost never miss a positive case, but you will be telling a lot of people that they have a disease which they do not have.
People probably only consider a subset of scenarios ("predictions") that are feasible. If the Simpson's were visited by aliens, nobody would consider this a prediction—because we know the odds of it happening are very low. So the universe of predictions we are considering is highly correlated with the prior probability that they will come true—this is stacking the deck in favor of the Simpsons.
The writers of the Simpsons are smart people that also live in the same society in which they are making their "predictions." They are trying to be funny, so what they do, in a Bayesian sense, is construct funny situations that are not assuredly going to happen (these are boring predictions) and are not never going to happen (these are absurd predictions). So again we see the prior probability of these things happen stacking the deck toward the Simpson's being correct: If they write about things with a solid-ish probability of happening (like Canada legalizing weed), then we shouldn't be too surprised when their predictions are correct.
There is no time limit on their predictions. This gives us an unlimited amount of "trials" (let's say the unit of analysis is days or elections or news cycles or celebrity careers, etc.), and all we ever need to do is hit truth once and the Simpsons are "correct."
When you consider all of these together, we can see that making a ton of predictions over an unlimited number of trials where you only have to hit once to be "correct," and people define "success" by ignoring Type I errors and shaping the universe of possible as things with only some probability of occurring, and the creators themselves generally make predictions in areas that have some prior probability of occurring—we can get to the conclusion that the Simpsons can "predict the future."
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Quick thoughts:
Let's pretend—instead of scenario-building or making jokes—each of their plot lines are actual predictions.
They make a lot of predictions, so their Type I error is very high, but their type II error is also very low. If every creative choice is making a prediction AND they have been around for decades, then their show is similar to a medical test that almost always says you have whatever disease you are testing for: You will almost never miss a positive case, but you will be telling a lot of people that they have a disease which they do not have.
People probably only consider a subset of scenarios ("predictions") that are feasible. If the Simpson's were visited by aliens, nobody would consider this a prediction—because we know the odds of it happening are very low. So the universe of predictions we are considering is highly correlated with the prior probability that they will come true—this is stacking the deck in favor of the Simpsons.
The writers of the Simpsons are smart people that also live in the same society in which they are making their "predictions." They are trying to be funny, so what they do, in a Bayesian sense, is construct funny situations that are not assuredly going to happen (these are boring predictions) and are not never going to happen (these are absurd predictions). So again we see the prior probability of these things happen stacking the deck toward the Simpson's being correct: If they write about things with a solid-ish probability of happening (like Canada legalizing weed), then we shouldn't be too surprised when their predictions are correct.
There is no time limit on their predictions. This gives us an unlimited amount of "trials" (let's say the unit of analysis is days or elections or news cycles or celebrity careers, etc.), and all we ever need to do is hit truth once and the Simpsons are "correct."
When you consider all of these together, we can see that making a ton of predictions over an unlimited number of trials where you only have to hit once to be "correct," and people define "success" by ignoring Type I errors and shaping the universe of possible as things with only some probability of occurring, and the creators themselves generally make predictions in areas that have some prior probability of occurring—we can get to the conclusion that the Simpsons can "predict the future."
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
Quick thoughts:
Let's pretend—instead of scenario-building or making jokes—each of their plot lines are actual predictions.
They make a lot of predictions, so their Type I error is very high, but their type II error is also very low. If every creative choice is making a prediction AND they have been around for decades, then their show is similar to a medical test that almost always says you have whatever disease you are testing for: You will almost never miss a positive case, but you will be telling a lot of people that they have a disease which they do not have.
People probably only consider a subset of scenarios ("predictions") that are feasible. If the Simpson's were visited by aliens, nobody would consider this a prediction—because we know the odds of it happening are very low. So the universe of predictions we are considering is highly correlated with the prior probability that they will come true—this is stacking the deck in favor of the Simpsons.
The writers of the Simpsons are smart people that also live in the same society in which they are making their "predictions." They are trying to be funny, so what they do, in a Bayesian sense, is construct funny situations that are not assuredly going to happen (these are boring predictions) and are not never going to happen (these are absurd predictions). So again we see the prior probability of these things happen stacking the deck toward the Simpson's being correct: If they write about things with a solid-ish probability of happening (like Canada legalizing weed), then we shouldn't be too surprised when their predictions are correct.
There is no time limit on their predictions. This gives us an unlimited amount of "trials" (let's say the unit of analysis is days or elections or news cycles or celebrity careers, etc.), and all we ever need to do is hit truth once and the Simpsons are "correct."
When you consider all of these together, we can see that making a ton of predictions over an unlimited number of trials where you only have to hit once to be "correct," and people define "success" by ignoring Type I errors and shaping the universe of possible as things with only some probability of occurring, and the creators themselves generally make predictions in areas that have some prior probability of occurring—we can get to the conclusion that the Simpsons can "predict the future."
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
answered 34 mins ago
Mark White
4,90821140
4,90821140
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
Point 3 is particularly interesting. The Bayesian stuff. But naturally, predictions are not always random. Even is "the model" is non bayesian but frequentist, is still an "informed" prediction, afaik.
– luchonacho
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f372723%2fwhy-are-the-simpsons-tv-series-so-apparently-successful-in-predicting-the-fu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
+1 because (a) I want to reward questions that are unique and (b) there is likely an apt "model" you could formulate to explain this
– Mark White
49 mins ago
5
Did anyone count the times that prediction is wrong?
– a_statistician
46 mins ago