Certainly it is easier to say it was wrong. Meteorologists actually do see the error bars &c., then they dumb it down so most people can grasp what they’re saying. I understand there is ongoing discussion as to what kind of balance is appropriate between being precise and being understandable. Unfortunately, status quo bias seems to be dictating the outcome of that discussion, and much of the information in meteorological models is never provided to the general public as a result.
I think most people would be perfectly able to understand: The temperature is going to be between 10 and 15 degrees instead of the temperature is going to be 12 degrees.
Then the metrologist can use whatever probability he considers to be appropriate.
Unfortunately, status quo bias seems to be dictating the outcome of that discussion
Yes, and the status quo is wrong. It’s makes sense to say it’s wrong. People in charge really do screw up by staying with the status quo. Making excuses for it doesn’t help.
That’s especially true today where I get my weather information from Google or from Windows. In both cases it would be easy to provide a UX interface that allows me to see proper statistics about the weather.
Google knows a lot about me. It could even guess that I want proper statistics.
The status quo is certainly wrong when it comes to the presentation of weather related data. The report is badly oversimplified due to several effects including the (over)estimated gap in understanding of statistics between meteorologists and the general public.
A 30% chance of precipitation is not, however, “wrong” if it does in fact rain. It merely expresses a fairly high degree of uncertainty in the claim “it will/won’t rain today”. The claim that such a report means the meteorologist was wrong (or somehow lying) is the subject of my complaint, not the format of the report itself (which I agree is abysmally deficient).
Certainly it is easier to say it was wrong. Meteorologists actually do see the error bars &c., then they dumb it down so most people can grasp what they’re saying. I understand there is ongoing discussion as to what kind of balance is appropriate between being precise and being understandable. Unfortunately, status quo bias seems to be dictating the outcome of that discussion, and much of the information in meteorological models is never provided to the general public as a result.
I think most people would be perfectly able to understand: The temperature is going to be between 10 and 15 degrees instead of the temperature is going to be 12 degrees.
Then the metrologist can use whatever probability he considers to be appropriate.
Yes, and the status quo is wrong. It’s makes sense to say it’s wrong. People in charge really do screw up by staying with the status quo. Making excuses for it doesn’t help.
That’s especially true today where I get my weather information from Google or from Windows. In both cases it would be easy to provide a UX interface that allows me to see proper statistics about the weather.
Google knows a lot about me. It could even guess that I want proper statistics.
The status quo is certainly wrong when it comes to the presentation of weather related data. The report is badly oversimplified due to several effects including the (over)estimated gap in understanding of statistics between meteorologists and the general public.
A 30% chance of precipitation is not, however, “wrong” if it does in fact rain. It merely expresses a fairly high degree of uncertainty in the claim “it will/won’t rain today”. The claim that such a report means the meteorologist was wrong (or somehow lying) is the subject of my complaint, not the format of the report itself (which I agree is abysmally deficient).
Do you think
I was just dumbing things downis generally a valid excuse when people state that you are making wrong statements?I think lying does include an attempt at deception which I agree isn’t there on the part of meteorologists.