Jump to content

The Congressman is back yo


congressman

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jrizzell said:

That poll used 1,115 people. If your comfortable saying that they truly represent 330 million Americans, cool post away....(more words)

I’m sorry man but there are more efficient ways to just say, “I don’t understand or believe in statistics.”

You’re right though that selective dunking doesn’t help move the country forward in a positive way, but in this instance I have to beg forgiveness 🍻

Edited by nsplayr
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jrizzell said:


That poll used 1,115 people. If your comfortable saying that they truly represent 330 million Americans, cool post away. We’ve become so fractured in our discourse, that we are looking for the piece of data that will let us dunk on few citizens, so we can prove we’re right. I trying to wrap my head around how we move forward as a United States. Although I didn’t vote for Biden, I had a glimmer of hope that he would try and play a “unifier”. Unfortunately it looks like that ship has sailed.

You realize that you don't have to interview 330 million Americans to get a statistical model, right?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Q conspiracies are not a problem for the Democratic Party even if some number of Dems respond “Don’t Know” rather than “False.” It’s pretty solidly an R problem in terms of people saying that what Q alleges is true. There are just a lot of politically disengaged people on all parties that don’t know much of anything when asked.

Now chemtrails, Area 51/aliens, who killed JFK, etc., those conspiracy theories cut much more broadly across political lines and mis- and disinformation is a problem everyone has to deal with and try to tamp down wherever they can.

My diagnosis is that for the entirety of human history we went from not having enough access to information and now some rich nations like ours have the opposite problem - you can google your way into having “evidence” for literally anything no matter how crazy.

Bingo.

And you can always find a community that will agree with your level of crazy, no matter what it is.

In times past, a moon landing denier or chemtrail advocate would be told by the only people they interact with that those ideas are crazy.  But now that we have the ability to talk to anyone, anywhere, the isolated crazy from town A can talk to the isolated crazies from towns B and C and reinforce their beliefs that "tons of people believe this, it's not that crazy".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

NPR's article also implies QAnon beliefs is an issue for Republicans, where as the pollsters article points to it being a problem across the board, with Republicans being more likely to believe. For example: T/F regarding Satan worshipping elites running the world, only R-14% D-46% I-33% said this was false (correct answer). So yes, it's a big problem for Republicans, but it's also a big problem for Democrats and independents alike. Unfortunately, the to NPR article only states the first half (Republican problem) while leaving out the rest of the story.

 

Statistics was my favorite class in High School.  Paid of so much in life, I think it should be required for all students.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out how you go from:

Q conspiracies are not a problem for the Democratic Party even if some number of Dems respond “Don’t Know” rather than “False.” It’s pretty solidly an R problem in terms of people saying that what Q alleges is true. There are just a lot of politically disengaged people in all parties that don’t know much of anything when asked.


To:

I’m sorry man but there are more efficient ways to just say, “I don’t understand or believe in statistics.”
You’re right though that selective dunking doesn’t help move the country forward in a positive way, but in this instance I have to beg forgiveness


I'll give you that it's probably less likely that someone who says they are a Democrat to fully buy into all of QAnon.

But for that question in particular, it shows that a good amount of people don't outright reject their craziness. Even the "I don't know" responses show one of two things: I'm not convinced one way or the other so show me proof, or I don't really care. I think it speaks to a general distrust of our government and society, which is a much larger problem than just QAnon (who admittedly is part of the problem)

So I guess I'm confused as to why you'd accept some conclusions from the study and reject others from that same study, without a specific complaint about the methodology. Otherwise, it's just cherry picking data to support your point of view while ignoring conflicting data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Statistics was my favorite class in High School.  Paid of so much in life, I think it should be required for all students.
 


I absolutely hated statistics in high school and undergrad. Developed an appreciation for it though after I signed up for a graduate level certificate program that I didn't realize until it was too late was essentially 5 graduate level stats courses with fancier/cooler sounding course names...

But I agree, intro to stats/probability is definitely more useful in normal life than calculus (or pre-calc) in high school.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sorry man but there are more efficient ways to just say, “I don’t understand or believe in statistics.”



I believe that EFFECTIVE or SUCCINCT not EFFICIENT would have been a better adjective to dismiss my opinion.

Side note, I do believe that statistics can be useful. I just feel that using a single poll to cast a disparaging net over 53 million people seems like a stretch. 


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

I'm trying to figure out how you go from...

I meant that the number of people responding "True" to the Q conspiracies was the operative thing, not the number of "Don't know" when comparing respondents & their political parties.

Here's the full results of the poll Ipsos (attached), see page 7 for the operative question I'm talking about.

71825449_ScreenShot2021-02-03at12_48_57PM.thumb.png.2357a1d8c353073178e38f708f5acc73.png

Ok so it's very, very bad that 17% of people believe this! Holy shit, just full stop, holy shit.

23% of Republicans vs 13% of Democrats vs 12% of Independents...that's a more Republican problem than a Democratic problem. Bad all around but still. Same goes for the % that correctly find this statement to be false, only 38% for Republicans vs 57% for Democrats. The Dems & Independents did better here too, but still no excuse for it not being 100%. This stuff is bat-shit crazy.

My other point was that the 37% overall that said they "Don't know" (38% Rep, 30% Dem, 39% Ind) doesn't necessarily tell you much on the question specifically. Notice that the "Don't know" is pretty stable regardless of political affiliation.

A large percentage of people of all stripes are going to say they don't know (if that is an option given) when asked about any specific/obscure/complex question. Tons of people just have better stuff to do than know things apparently 🙄. I 100% guarantee you some % of people would say they don't know if the sky is blue.

Anyways, it's an inside-baseball discussion of polls. I enjoy analyzing polls and have some training on what to look for. I'm genuinely happy to discuss! But i you don't like a poll, feel free to give a specific reason (bad sampling, bad weighting, asking leading questions, tabulation errors, etc.). Just blanket saying "this poll doesn't represent 69 million Americans!" is not a valid debrief point.

BL: Q Anon is bad, their conspiracy theories are false and poisoning people's minds, and if you know someone who believes this stuff or "doesn't know" that it's false, help the country out by gently steering them back toward reality. :flag_waving:

Ipsos Poll.pdf

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

23% of Republicans vs 13% of Democrats vs 12% of Independents...that's a more Republican problem than a Democratic problem. Bad all around but still. Same goes for the % that correctly find this statement to be false, only 38% for Republicans vs 57% for Democrats. The Dems & Independents did better here too, but still no excuse for it not being 100%. This stuff is bat-shit crazy.
 

Ipsos Poll.pdf 520.62 kB · 0 downloads

So, I agree it is nutty and not a good look for anyone.

However, the news the past decade has been about elites covering up child sex rings.  Epstein, British House of Lords, Catholic church, etc.  Sure, news loves pushing the narrative...but damn if it didn't at least hint to the conspiracy.

Also, Epstein didn't kill himself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Ok so it's very, very bad that 17% of people believe this! Holy shit, just full stop, holy shit.
23% of Republicans vs 13% of Democrats vs 12% of Independents...that's a more Republican problem than a Democratic problem. Bad all around but still. Same goes for the % that correctly find this statement to be false, only 38% for Republicans vs 57% for Democrats. The Dems & Independents did better here too, but still no excuse for it not being 100%. This stuff is bat-shit crazy.


Cool, we're actually in agreement.


My other point was that the 37% overall that said they "Don't know" (38% Rep, 30% Dem, 39% Ind) doesn't necessarily tell you much on the question specifically. Notice that the "Don't know" is pretty stable regardless of political affiliation.


"Don't know" is sometimes useful in surveys, but sometimes dumb. For the question we've been looking at, I think it's pretty hard to not have an opinion one way or another, and a don't know answer to me says "hey, it's possible, just don't know one way or the other." But I'm probably biased. A better scale here might've been the strongly agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree scale: force them to make an opinion, and not take a coward's stance...

Also, some of the better designed surveys will ask the same question multiple times in different ways. Increases length, but can provide better information. It's why some of the AF or DOD surveys are so long.


A large percentage of people of all stripes are going to say they don't know (if that is an option given) when asked about any specific/obscure/complex question. Tons of people just have better stuff to do than know things apparently . I 100% guarantee you some % of people would say they don't know if the sky is blue.


And yet, they have the time to do a survey. (I realize the irony of us having spare time to post politics on an online discussion forum, to include doing some cursory research to back comments)

Probably the hardest part about conducting surveys/polls: your data is only as good as the people who have the time and desire to do the survey in the first place, and often without compensation. Making it mandatory doesn't help either, since those that don't want to participate will at best click through as fast as possible (especially if don't know or neutral are options), or at worst deliberately pick answers to try and screw with the results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I’m absolutely torn on this because I absolutely can’t stand Greene, and as McConnell said, she’s a cancer on the Republican party, but I fear the Dems don’t understand the Pandora’s box they’ll open if they remove a GOP member in the minority straight down the party line. They’ll really regret it once/if the Republicans ever take the majority back...  Greene sucks and McCarthy should have censured her, held a vote to internally handle her dumpster fire in the making, but the Dems are making a mistake if they remove her.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slackline said:

So, I’m absolutely torn on this because I absolutely can’t stand Greene, and as McConnell said, she’s a cancer on the Republican party, but I fear the Dems don’t understand the Pandora’s box they’ll open if they remove a GOP member in the minority straight down the party line.

It’s 2/3 vote to expel so it wouldn’t be party line if successful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys realize that roughly 30% of the population is greater than 1 standard deviation (about 15) from the mean on IQ right?  So about 15% of a 330M population is below an IQ of 85.  Since you could probably justifiably say that about 8M of those people are actually mentally handicapped (2x standard devs), the other ~40M are just good old fashioned dumb.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, slackline said:

Pretty sure his response was not simply stating a "fact". But YMMV.

Just stating a fact. A sizable sample doesn’t mean it’s a good sample. It could be skewed just by the type of people that agree to answer. While everyone here seems to be a stats expert with black and white results, population statistics are actually super grey and hard to get right. Just consider that when looking at the results, that’s all.

Edited by MCO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expelling an elected congressman for things said /believed before their election (aka known to voters) would be counter productive, anti-democratic, and just plain creepy.  Dumb fuck or not, she was elected.  Just like the open socialists, pandering assholes, and the rest.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed

1 minute ago, busdriver said:

Expelling an elected congressman for things said /believed before their election (aka known to voters) would be counter productive, anti-democratic, and just plain creepy.  Dumb fuck or not, she was elected.  Just like the open socialists, pandering assholes, and the rest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

You guys realize that roughly 30% of the population is greater than 1 standard deviation (about 15) from the mean on IQ right?  So about 15% of a 330M population is below an IQ of 85.  Since you could probably justifiably say that about 8M of those people are actually mentally handicapped (2x standard devs), the other ~40M are just good old fashioned dumb.

I like to think about how dumb the average American is, and then I immediately think about how half of the rest are dumber than that...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

You guys realize that roughly 30% of the population is greater than 1 standard deviation (about 15) from the mean on IQ right?  So about 15% of a 330M population is below an IQ of 85.  Since you could probably justifiably say that about 8M of those people are actually mentally handicapped (2x standard devs), the other ~40M are just good old fashioned dumb.

This was some of the most fascinating discussions on Jordan Peterson's videos on Youtube that I watched.  It really highlighted how he wasn't some far-right nutjob, but you know...left gonna left.

I still don't know why he gets so much hate outside the, "You can't make me say what I don't want to."


I always wondered when I'd read about someone holding a lecture and people attending "in ye olden days," who the hell would go?  After listening to his presentations, I get it.  I didn't always agree, but it made me think hard about a lot of different things, and I appreciated it.  Also good conversation with friends and family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was some of the most fascinating discussions on Jordan Peterson's videos on Youtube that I watched.  It really highlighted how he wasn't some far-right nutjob, but you know...left gonna left.

I still don't know why he gets so much hate outside the, "You can't make me say what I don't want to."

I always wondered when I'd read about someone holding a lecture and people attending "in ye olden days," who the hell would go?  After listening to his presentations, I get it.  I didn't always agree, but it made me think hard about a lot of different things, and I appreciated it.  Also good conversation with friends and family.

It’s easy to listen to Jordan Peterson because he is an excellent communicator. He rarely ever raises his tone. I appreciate anyone’s opinion when they can intelligently communicate their opinion without sarcasm or having to raise their voice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

This was some of the most fascinating discussions on Jordan Peterson's videos on Youtube that I watched.  It really highlighted how he wasn't some far-right nutjob, but you know...left gonna left.

I still don't know why he gets so much hate outside the, "You can't make me say what I don't want to."


I always wondered when I'd read about someone holding a lecture and people attending "in ye olden days," who the hell would go?  After listening to his presentations, I get it.  I didn't always agree, but it made me think hard about a lot of different things, and I appreciated it.  Also good conversation with friends and family.

It's because he tells people they are responsible for fixing their own lives, and that no one else is going to do it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...