Political change in Singapore: Regression towards the mean
-
I believe this is what many Singaporeans can concerned about, regarding the opposition and political change.
Let me give a quick explanation about the law of regression towards the mean. Essentially, we can give numerical values to many things like performances scores, prices, age, height, etc.
For any particular population (say, the scores of all the students who have ever taken PSLE), we can establish a mean (perhaps the mean score is 200). Say we have an expectionally bright cohort of students who collectively score an average of 220, the chances are virtually nil that the next cohort will score 220 or anything higher. They will, effectively, "regress" downwards towards 200. If the next cohort scores 180, then their successors will again regress upwards towards 200.
In nature, there is regression towards the mean too. For example, more often than not parents of above average height will give birth to children shorter than their peers, and vice-versa.
Back to the context of politics in Singapore. In many people's eyes, the PAP did a good job undisputedly, through the independence period to the 90s. Now some say the opposition should be given a chance, "because they can do it even better" or "PAP has become complacent".
But here's the question- Why change something that has proven itself? That is what many Singaporeans say when it comes to the elections. Again and again we hear them say "The opposition will screw it up lah.", "Singapore will fail if the opposition takes over.". How come they are quick to judge something unproven?
There is some statistical basis for those comments even though the opposition have not had a chance. If all the governments past and present had their performances evaluated objectively, surely the PAP would at least score somewhat higher than average.
So there is much danger, even though the opposition may be full of talented and passionate members, that the performance of the new government will "regress" towards the mean instead of staying constant or being better than the last.
Extension of the principle: Above we looked at the population of all world governments past and present. Now we can just consider a population of just PAP governments past and present. If we judge that the average performance of all past PAP governments is X, then many people will say that the current government has a performance below X as compared to the 1970s governments that score above X. This drop in performance of the current adminstration could be explained that they are simply regressing about the true mean of performance of the PAP ("high" compared to the rest of the world); soon we can expect their performance to improve, and that we can trust that their true mean performance has not dropped.
Quote WIki: For example, Carmelo Anthony of the NBA's Denver Nuggets had an outstanding rookie season in 2004. It was so outstanding, in fact, that he couldn't possibly be expected to repeat it: in 2005, Anthony's numbers had dropped from his rookie season.
So what do you folks think? I'm no PAP fan-boy; I'm a utopian socialist. Just pointing out that many Singaporeans realistically view political change as a 'gambit' and why, from statistical theory, they are "right" in a weird way.
How will you, opposition fans, get them to change their mind? Do you disagree? I hope to facilitate a discussion. Pardon me, statistics students, if I make a mistake about your theory.
-
1) A mean is not a static figure (unless we are robots) but a dynamic one. Your reference of regressing PSLE scores is not entirely true, test questions vary over time, just look at the amount of parents requesting for help to solve their Primary 6 kid's maths problem.
Also, IQ has improved from generations to generations, Flynn Effect. I prefer the Law of Large Numbers, the large number of PAP MPs in parliament. I remembered the promises of the Swiss Standard of Living, but when the question was posed to GCK, he said that they promised the Swiss Standard of Living in the 1980s, perhaps that's the problem with them, relying on past static figures. It's like everyone is driving a car now, yet they are using a bicycle to justify their results.
2) Past performance is not a good indication of future or present performance. You decide if they have done a good job since the beginning of the new millenium. Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of PAP as we know it. I know of friends who did well for PSLE but not O Levels, I know of folks who did badly for PSLE but did well for O Levels. Maybe you can come up with a way to measure volatility. Maybe GARCH or ARIMA?
3) You would have to give the same credit to Hong Kong colonial government too, they achieve the same standard of living compared to Singapore, some say even higher but without the negatives like GST and nepotism (having family members run state owned enterprises).
4) We achieved a reasonable amount of speed when we used our bicycles, but to achieve a higher level of speed, sometimes we have to ditch the bicycle and get used to riding a motorbike or a car.
When you see your government importing foreign talents en masse to compete against the citizens they were sworn to protect, something must have gone wrong somewhere.Always know one thing, monopoly is not good in any situation, it means that one party has a greater power, indiscretionary power left to any particular group will be subject to abuse.
Balance is the essence of life, we need the ying and the yang.
-
But here's the question- Why change something that has proven itself? That is what many Singaporeans say when it comes to the elections. Again and again we hear them say "The opposition will screw it up lah.", "Singapore will fail if the opposition takes over.". How come they are quick to judge something unproven?
Just pointing out that many Singaporeans realistically view political change as a 'gambit'
That's because of PAP propaganda.
If we judge that the average performance of all past PAP governments is X, then many people will say that the current government has a performance below X as compared to the 1970s governments that score above X. This drop in performance of the current adminstration could be explained that they are simply regressing about the true mean of performance of the PAP ("high" compared to the rest of the world); soon we can expect their performance to improve, and that we can trust that their true mean performance has not dropped.
I will judge PAP by how successful they are in building a state where the people are happy, where the people feel proud to be a citizen of the state, where the people are free to express themselves, where the people feel that this is home, where the people admire and is inspired by their leaders.
What is the score of PAP?
Complete EPIC FAILURE.
What the hell are these people doing as political leaders?
-
You never heard of a Black Swan event?
Fat tail in the distribution?
-
char,
What kind of Nash Equilibria do you get with a single dominant party?
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
char,
What kind of Nash Equilibria do you get with a single dominant party?
The dominant party IS the Nash Equilibria.
Can you please stop asking me questions which I have no clear answer to?
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
But here's the question- Why change something that has proven itself? That is what many Singaporeans say when it comes to the elections. Again and again we hear them say "The opposition will screw it up lah.", "Singapore will fail if the opposition takes over.". How come they are quick to judge something unproven?
Just pointing out that many Singaporeans realistically view political change as a 'gambit'
That's because of PAP propaganda.
If we judge that the average performance of all past PAP governments is X, then many people will say that the current government has a performance below X as compared to the 1970s governments that score above X. This drop in performance of the current adminstration could be explained that they are simply regressing about the true mean of performance of the PAP ("high" compared to the rest of the world); soon we can expect their performance to improve, and that we can trust that their true mean performance has not dropped.
I will judge PAP by how successful they are in building a state where the people are happy, where the people feel proud to be a citizen of the state, where the people are free to express themselves, where the people feel that this is home, where the people admire and is inspired by their leaders.
What is the score of PAP?
Complete EPIC FAILURE.
What the hell are these people doing as political leaders?
The people out in the coffeeshops dont agree with you what. They still identify political change as a risk. They judge PAP by their stomach, their wallet, their cars.
Regression is law of nature anyway. You can't say that its propaganda...
-
Originally posted by charlize:
You never heard of a Black Swan event?
Fat tail in the distribution?
Identifying a Black Swan Event
Based on the author's criteria:
- The event is a surprise.
- The event has a major impact.
After the fact, it is usually the case that the event is rationalized by hindsight, as if it was expected to occur.
Char you talking about this? please elaborate for benefit for all
-
People fear change, because they are accustomed to certain way of doing things, asking these folks to change is like bringing in another unknown to an already familiar way of doing things.
People fear the unknown like they fear death, death is certain, but any point after death is a big unknown.
-
Of late you must be pretty bored of studying for your university exams and you are trying to get yourself amused by posting in here.
-
First time I see a thread in here using statistics to explain politics.
-
Fat tail is the result of an extremely inactive fat cat.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
First time I see a thread in here using statistics to explain politics.
Lies, damn lies, statistics and politics.
Statistics is still the lesser evil.
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
1) A mean is not a static figure (unless we are robots) but a dynamic one. Your reference of regressing PSLE scores is not entirely true, test questions vary over time, just look at the amount of parents requesting for help to solve their Primary 6 kid's maths problem.
Also, IQ has improved from generations to generations, Flynn Effect. I prefer the Law of Large Numbers, the large number of PAP MPs in parliament. I remembered the promises of the Swiss Standard of Living, but when the question was posed to GCK, he said that they promised the Swiss Standard of Living in the 1980s, perhaps that's the problem with them, relying on past static figures. It's like everyone is driving a car now, yet they are using a bicycle to justify their results.
2) Past performance is not a good indication of future or present performance. You decide if they have done a good job since the beginning of the new millenium. Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of PAP as we know it. I know of friends who did well for PSLE but not O Levels, I know of folks who did badly for PSLE but did well for O Levels. Maybe you can come up with a way to measure volatility.
3) You would have to give the same credit to Hong Kong colonial government too, they achieve the same standard of living compared to Singapore, some say even higher but without the negatives like GST and nepotism (having family members run state owned enterprises).
4) We achieved a reasonable amount of speed when we used our bicycles, but to achieve a higher level of speed, sometimes we have to ditch the bicycle and get used to riding a motorbike or a car.
When you see your government importing foreign talents en masse to compete against the citizens they were sworn to protect, something must have gone wrong somewhere.Always know one thing, monopoly is not good in any situation, it means that one party has a greater power, indiscretionary power left to any particular group will be subject to abuse.
Balance is the essence of life, we need the ying and the yang.
Ummm1) The population true mean is unlikely to have changed over the past 30 years that PAP has been in power. The reason is because the population is very big, if we count all governments of all systems past and present we would find it staggering. For example in just 30 years we had 7 elections. We are just one country too.
2) Past result is always used as a predictor for the future. Whether it actually does is a different matter. You would always expect a clever student to score well, regardless of his regression about his own true mean.
3) Why does Hong Kong come into play here? The purpose of the topic is to look at political change in another way ( the view point from the mainstream public of political change as a risk). Please dont flog a dead horse by repeating the goodness of HK, Aussieland, etc. I agree that Hong Kong is a nice place with a nice government anyway, otherwise.
4) Your analogy with speed could be slightly flawed. While performance and test scores are always evaluated as a proportion that cannot exceed 100%, speed is a quantity. Quantity and proportion are inherently different. But yes, to "improve" we must take a gamble in the opposition- along with its downside risk. We could say that the general public believe that the possible benefits do not justify the risk in regression of performance of the government.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
First time I see a thread in here using statistics to explain politics.
Everyone uses statistics in their daily life anyway. Like you know,, Charlize is late for his date with deepak. Charlize calls deepak and says " Hey Deepak, sorry. I will be late by 5 to 10 minutes".<Confidence interval > in action?
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
Of late you must be pretty bored of studying for your university exams and you are trying to get yourself amused by posting in here.
Well, I'm kinda interested in the study of politics..from different perspectives.
How about you? Are you working or a student?
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
Everyone uses statistics in their daily life anyway. Like you know,, Charlize is late for his date with
deepak. Charlize calls deepak and says " Hey Deepak, sorry. I will
be late by 5 to 10 minutes".<Confidence interval > in action?
Wtf has this got to do with Confidence Interval?
Are you sure you are reading your stats book right?
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
Ummm1) The population true mean is unlikely to have changed over the past 30 years that PAP has been in power. The reason is because the population is very big, if we count all governments of all systems past and present we would find it staggering. For example in just 30 years we had 7 elections. We are just one country too.
2) Past result is always used as a predictor for the future. Whether it actually does is a different matter. You would always expect a clever student to score well, regardless of his regression about his own true mean.
3) Why does Hong Kong come into play here? The purpose of the topic is to look at political change in another way ( the view point from the mainstream public of political change as a risk). Please dont flog a dead horse by repeating the goodness of HK, Aussieland, etc. I agree that Hong Kong is a nice place with a nice government anyway, otherwise.
4) Your analogy with speed could be slightly flawed. While performance and test scores are always evaluated as a proportion that cannot exceed 100%, speed is a quantity. Quantity and proportion are inherently different. But yes, to "improve" we must take a gamble in the opposition- along with its downside risk. We could say that the general public believe that the possible benefits do not justify the risk in regression of performance of the government.
1) Your source of data being? Or is just your pure observation? What about the intelligence of students now and 30 years ago? What happened to my Flynn Effect? Is it also true that the number of heart diseases regresses to mean 30 years ago? Or with a more affluent lifestyle, the mean moves with time?2) A bright student today does not necessarily mean a bright student tomorrow, a bunch of Nobel Laureates bankrupted LTCM almost resulting in a meltdown of the financial markets, had not the US government stepped in. I am sure you have seen big companies making extraordinary profits only to be filing chapter 11 not too far in the future.
3) Can't help bringing in Hong Kong because you made it seem that any small country devoid of resources will be a dead beat without our PAP. Just wanted to wake you up to smell the roses. Hong Kong with the same set of circumstances without PAP achieved similar to Singapore. Demographics and geographics has more to do with Singapore's success rather than just pure governance by yours truly.
4) Speed is also evaluated based on 100% proportion, the speed of light being 100% (provided you don't bring in tachyons). They have Mach to measure proportion of speed to sound too. FYI, test questions also vary in time, they are not static, go look at the test question from 30 years ago compare it present.
So is the 100% of 30 years the same as the 100% of present? Ask your parents to take the current A Levels and compare it to your results, is the results consistent with their results from the past? -
i agree that everyone is afraid of change, everyone... let's not lie to ourselves, even if we do say, embrace change... we are afraid of change, why? as some already have the answers; we are afraid of the unknown.
just take the new virus in town as an example; everyone in the medical industry fears the most? this new virus change into some else that they will have no idea how to proceed with treatment, or even how to test for it. WHO fears the virus will mutate into something else and infect everything else on the faces of this planet.
even when we want to buy a new car, we will not jump into any model or brands without test driving it. we want to "know" the car before buying. why? cos' of fear of the unknown.
why do they have aunties promoting new products in NTUC? to allow consumers to "test" and see if they like it cos' we will not buy a new product out of fear. we may buy one or two to "test, test" and discard it away if it's not nice cos' it's cheap and probably not going to burn my pocket. eg. if i bought a packet of milk and discard it after the first sip cos' it taste like shit, i probably won't be cursing much. afterall, it cost only 3.90 but the change of government could jeopardise a lot of things, like cost of living, standard of living and even where i'm staying... so people tend to be cautious with big major changes.
-
Right, people fear big changes and that is why the cursed despot with a zombie wife will ruin the country with his cronyism and nepotism and the ruin will be inevitable because people are afraid of change.
That is why I say:
I just watch watch watch and laugh laugh laugh, having warned everyone in sgforums that this was going to happen. 29 Apr `09, 8:46PM