164
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
164 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13484 readers
893 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
according to whom tho
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/
like im going to trust "qualtrics" and their "math"
Have you taken a statistics class?
Ok cool. 1000 people who will answer a text message from unknown. Would you? Again, I know literally zero people who support Israel in this conflict. Got friends up and down the age spectrum, in and outside of the states.
So my poll says 100% of everyone I know wants this shit to end. Facebook, Twitter, insta, all on the same page here.
Somehow American polls always seem to be, ahem, skewed.
Look at those 538 predictions based on 'polling data' on the last several elections.
This is not how statistics works
Look up i.i.d sampling please for the love of God.
This wasn't a random sample though
Maybe not but I don't see anything in their brief methodology section quoted above to indicate it wasn't a random sample of mobile phone users. What makes you think it wasn't?
A random sample of mobile phone users isn't a random sample, because you're only going to get the people who answer texts from strangers.
It's called "non-response bias" and it's a huge part of the reason political polling doesn't work. It's strong enough to render almost any sample from a phone survey non-representative.
Yeah I understand that there's a difference between the sampled population and the actual population of interest, but you can't discount the results of on account of that unless you can meaningfully show a non-zero covariance between the response variable and likelihood of non-response.
By all means it's a caveat but it doesn't make these results entirely non-informative.
In any case I cited iid conditions to explain why asking all their friends is certain to produce a useless estimate of the population proportion.
They know that asking their friends is useless. They were trying to make a point about sampling bias.
To me they were saying this numbers are totally made up.
If it's not representative, it basically is
A biased estimator is not a meaningless or non-informative estimator.
Look at it this way. When the US wants to prosecute a suspect in federal court, where do they generally hold the trials? In the whitest, most affluent part of Virginia. So the jury, while random, is still taken from a specific pool of people who lean a certain way politically.
If you think polling data isn't politically motivated and influenced by sample location, age, and the way the questions are formulated, you're deceiving yourself. What's that saying? There are small lies, big lies, and statistics.