merlin401 t1_jdtkt3o wrote
Reply to comment by thedybbuk in From millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population seem much larger to many Americans by jrdjared
Yes that is precisely what science would consider a better explanation: to find a simple single solution that explains all the consistently odd results. Not to say “wow the same thing happens for all these different instances … Let’s assume one solution that fits our political agenda for one of them and then look for a completely different explanation for each of the other cases.”
cosmernaut420 t1_jdtlsko wrote
You mean you're going to sit here impersonating a statistician and plead for the acceptance of universal human logic as a concept?
Really?
merlin401 t1_jdtu1i3 wrote
Lol what? People aren’t good with understanding percentages and what they mean. Yes I will absolutely stand by that
cosmernaut420 t1_jdtws6c wrote
The reasons for that phenomenon are not nearly uniform, just like literally anything to do with human nature. You can't use Occam's Razor against human logic, it will never work.
An actual statistician would be painfully aware of this, and not gainsaying people presenting perfectly reasonable explanations that aren't just "everyone is bad at estimates for exactly the same reason".
merlin401 t1_jdty90h wrote
Not “everyone” obviously. But overall we see bad estimates from humans on average in every category here when pooled together. So yes that is exactly the reason for this. Your “logic” is not only bad it is totally backwards. But I don’t care to speak with you anymore.
thedybbuk t1_jdto61k wrote
So in other words, you want one simple solution that applies to all situations. And you think somehow this makes you scientific instead of dogmatic?
Nowhere have you even argued against anything I said. You are just insisting one simple solution that applies universally is best.
You are the worst type of statistician. One who wants to ignore human messiness and politics because they complicate things too much. You're basically trying to turn sociology into a study of universal constants, with all the parts that make humans an especially difficult topic to study removed.
merlin401 t1_jdtuf2o wrote
One one simple explanation adequately explains all the results, yes that is best. If the data showed something else and some pieces didn’t fit then yes, other solutions should be sought. Very frequently the most boring answer is the right one, as much as you want to make it be some complicated political thing.
(And for what it’s worth I’m politically on “your side”. The right wing media is poisoning the well regarding trans people and, hey, maybe without that this poll shows 16% estimated instesd of 20% or something. The point is you don’t need that explanation to explain it because every other data point is showing the same misunderstandin)
thedybbuk t1_jdtyi8l wrote
I'm not concerned with which side you're on. It has no bearing on your terrible logic and wanting to remove all human complexity from analyzing this data.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments