Oh Christ.
I think you deserve an explantion in reply to my request a while back. This isn't my take on the pluses and minuses of formal education of course, but I do hope you might grasp how I think.
Look, there are tiers of posters. There are the high level ones like LL., who are armed to the
teeth across dimensions. If you want to flip me, you have to do that against what she brings to the party as evidence, and what I know. I like to think I'm much better on the math-elections stuff than LL. I learned at the feet of some real nerds. I also listen to what she drops on the table, with respect to US elections.
I learn stuff. Her links are quality. She is quite good at finding numbers outside my wheelhouse.
There are really good ones like Spadge, whose focus is on international news. They are better connected to good content than me. I don't always agree, with cause, but I would be remiss if l ignored what they link.
There are specialists like Mutzo and
@PhilM, where I know enough to know are way better linked in than me. I know a ton in this realm, but if I want data, they are the people to ask across many dimensions.
If you don't listen to what they have to say, I don't know what I have to say to you. I'm more or less a cheap second-tier American elections analyst plugging a void around here, about as much as a Supreme Court reader, and rather more as it comes to our government with respect to international relations. I have also been out of that latter game for some time, so I depend on others for the data I need for predictions.
What I need for elections outputs is very available. If Mutzo or Phil tells me I'm full of it at the micro level, I am, and I have to recalibrate. I think you go wrong on two levels. You don't know how to know you're wrong, or who to listen to when.
