Physicists understand that observation can change the thing being studied. Perhaps observer effect partially explains the pollsters’ poor predictions (“Stunned by N.H., pollsters regroup to seek answers,” Jan 10). Maybe the very act of publishing the polls changed the vote. If voters were truly undecided to the last minute, as many appeared to be, they’d want to prolong the race by voting for the underdog — which, according to the polls, was Obama in Iowa and Clinton in New Hampshire.
On the other hand, cognitive scientists also believe that humans have a natural bias to see patterns where none exist — which, in the case of pollsters, pundits, and journalists, leads to the need to find a story to “explain” statistics, whether polls or vote results. We’re also biased towards dramatic, human stories: it’s a lot more interesting to attribute Clinton’s victory to the “choked up” episode than a complex mix of more prosaic factors like operational effectiveness.
But then, with the exception of Mitt Romney, well-oiled machines are rarely photogenic.
