While I agree, this survey is based on less than 1% of the population. The article does not clearly cite its sources. 'Based on 1019 responses' from who? Sydneysiders? People from the NT?
This uncited survey from a for profit company, with major shareholders being venture capitalists, asset managers, shitbags, etc. with a history of possible poll manipulation means nothing.
I expect better from the Guardian
this survey is based on less than 1% of the population.
Yes, that's how polls work.
And surprise surprise they have the predictive value of about chance.
You really need to look into the concept of statistical sampling. It's how just about all science works, and I can assure you science works.
While I don’t disagree, polling is the absolute worst example of scientific analysis. There are so many easy ways they can be swayed…leading questions, framing questions, selection bias, etc. And that gets used to form manipulative articles based on intentionally misreresentative facts.
Polls really need to be taken with context and a grain of salt.
Those are valid critiques.
And you really shouldn't be having this conversation with a former testing engineer.
You can't compare these garbage polls with what goes on in the science+engineering landscape. The main difference is if we are wrong there are consequences for being wrong.
OK, so something with no citations or methodology is gospel, got it...
OK, so something with no citations or methodology is gospel, got it…
I didn't say that, now did I? I simply pointed out that criticizing a survey for being based on "less than 1% of the population" is fucking stupid because that's just how polling works. Got it? Good. We're done here.
The article does not clearly cite its sources. ‘Based on 1019 responses’ from who? Sydneysiders? People from the NT?
This uncited survey from a for profit company, with major shareholders being venture capitalists, asset managers, shitbags, etc. with a history of possible poll manipulation means nothing.
Was that edited in after the fact? Why are people dogpiling based on that first sentence and ignoring the rest?
No it was not edited after.
My point of contention was not just less than 1%, it was no citations as well. You just used that part.
If I ask 1000 ac/dc fans what the best music genre is they probably are not going to say soft rock.
While I agree, this survey is based on less than 1% of the population.
The fact that the survey is uncited is a problem, but polling is a science, and you only need a relatively small amount, with proper weighting, to get reliable results.
I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but for a population the size of Australia with 1000 respondents, a 99% confidence level has a margin of error of 4% which is perfectly acceptable. Unless the survey targeted very specific demographics versus a random sample, it should be very accurate.
That was my point though, we have no idea who was surveyed.
Agreed. YouGov is garbage. They are owned by christian nationalists of the Tory variety. There is nothing governmental about them, and they meddle in public opinion of foreign countries. Their polls rarely show the source information. I've seen them post absurd things, like quietly polling a catholic church and being like, "98% of Americans oppose abortion". I don't know who exactly they polled, cause they won't tell us most of the time.
No they don't, they're idiots. Severing a valuable longstanding alliance because you don't like their current leader, who will be in power for at most, another 4 years is an incredibly short-sighted decision.
I mean, I'm sure he'll have a massive coronary or stroke before he finishes his second term, if he even lives past his felony trials.
if he becomes president the trials wil almost certainly stop
Just like how Kim Il Sung died, and suddenly North Korea was free!
But, they can start supporting again after 4 years. Seems pretty short sighted to not think about 5 years +.
I mean, what would "dumping our alliance" even look like? Cut off trade? Deny travel? I get the sentiment but this is just stupid, not to mention Australia's own right wing woes.
They could stop military cooperation, they could severely limit trade, they could begin to require Americans to have visas for entry.
Don't forget this is a poll not a diplomatic statement from the Aussie gov. If it was they would have outlined what would be expected.
Though one would expect Australia to be a little more tactful when it come to foreign policy announcements or opinions on an ally's head of state or elections for the position.
40% of Australia has their head on.
While I agree, this survey is based on less than 1% of the population. The article does not clearly cite its sources. 'Based on 1019 responses' from who? Sydneysiders? People from the NT?
This uncited survey from a for profit company, with major shareholders being venture capitalists, asset managers, shitbags, etc. with a history of possible poll manipulation means nothing.
I expect better from the Guardian
Yes, that's how polls work.
And surprise surprise they have the predictive value of about chance.
You really need to look into the concept of statistical sampling. It's how just about all science works, and I can assure you science works.
While I don’t disagree, polling is the absolute worst example of scientific analysis. There are so many easy ways they can be swayed…leading questions, framing questions, selection bias, etc. And that gets used to form manipulative articles based on intentionally misreresentative facts.
Polls really need to be taken with context and a grain of salt.
Those are valid critiques.
And you really shouldn't be having this conversation with a former testing engineer.
You can't compare these garbage polls with what goes on in the science+engineering landscape. The main difference is if we are wrong there are consequences for being wrong.
OK, so something with no citations or methodology is gospel, got it...
I didn't say that, now did I? I simply pointed out that criticizing a survey for being based on "less than 1% of the population" is fucking stupid because that's just how polling works. Got it? Good. We're done here.
Was that edited in after the fact? Why are people dogpiling based on that first sentence and ignoring the rest?
No it was not edited after.
My point of contention was not just less than 1%, it was no citations as well. You just used that part.
If I ask 1000 ac/dc fans what the best music genre is they probably are not going to say soft rock.
The irony of course is that the gospels were made up completely. Except for the part in Luke and John where they admit to coping from other writers.
The fact that the survey is uncited is a problem, but polling is a science, and you only need a relatively small amount, with proper weighting, to get reliable results.
I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but for a population the size of Australia with 1000 respondents, a 99% confidence level has a margin of error of 4% which is perfectly acceptable. Unless the survey targeted very specific demographics versus a random sample, it should be very accurate.
That was my point though, we have no idea who was surveyed.
Agreed. YouGov is garbage. They are owned by christian nationalists of the Tory variety. There is nothing governmental about them, and they meddle in public opinion of foreign countries. Their polls rarely show the source information. I've seen them post absurd things, like quietly polling a catholic church and being like, "98% of Americans oppose abortion". I don't know who exactly they polled, cause they won't tell us most of the time.
How high are you right meow?
No they don't, they're idiots. Severing a valuable longstanding alliance because you don't like their current leader, who will be in power for at most, another 4 years is an incredibly short-sighted decision.
Cut off the nose to spite the face energy.
Trump already attempted one coup to remain in power. You'd have to be a moron to think he'd willingly step down after a second term. Particularly since he's on the record saying that he wants to be president for life - multiple times.
I mean, I'm sure he'll have a massive coronary or stroke before he finishes his second term, if he even lives past his felony trials.
if he becomes president the trials wil almost certainly stop
Just like how Kim Il Sung died, and suddenly North Korea was free!
But, they can start supporting again after 4 years. Seems pretty short sighted to not think about 5 years +.
I mean, what would "dumping our alliance" even look like? Cut off trade? Deny travel? I get the sentiment but this is just stupid, not to mention Australia's own right wing woes.
They could stop military cooperation, they could severely limit trade, they could begin to require Americans to have visas for entry.
Don't forget this is a poll not a diplomatic statement from the Aussie gov. If it was they would have outlined what would be expected.
Though one would expect Australia to be a little more tactful when it come to foreign policy announcements or opinions on an ally's head of state or elections for the position.
Remove as a friend on faceboot