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.
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.