Models are Distracting
So Dave Mortman wrote:
I don’t disagree with Adam that we need raw data. He’s absolutely right that without it, you can’t test models. What I was trying to get at was that, even though I would absolutely love to have access to more raw data to test my own theories, it just isn’t realistic to expect that sort of access in the legal and business environment we have today. So until things change, we have to figure out another way to get at the data.
First off, I don’t disagree with why Dave is going where he’s going, but I think it’s built on a mis-read of where we are, and a strategic error regardless.
Where we are: we do have raw data. It’s coming to us from unexpected sources, and we’re getting more of it day by day. We’d like more details, we’d like more consistency and we’d like more depth, and each of those will come.
But far more important is the strategic error of asking for something that isn’t the fullness of what we want, and the risk that the cover-up club will use it to avoid the real goal by talking about how much progress we’ve made sharing models.
You almost never get anything you don’t ask for. If we have a list of requests, the top of the list is data, data and data.
Further, I declare that this is a realistic request, and attach precisely the level of proof that the good Mr. Mortman did when asserting that “it just isn’t realistic.”
Not that I’m opposed to model sharing. We just need to recognize it for the poor substitute that it is, and keep our eyes on the real goal.
Speaking of where your eyes are, that’s Claire [link to http://www.specsmodels.com/pages/Claire.htm no longer works], she’s represented by Specs Model Management. And as the title says, quite distracting.