It pollutes the senders data set because its entirely fallacious to assume that the only reason why some one would choose not to assert their opinion is only because they hold a specific opinion. The resulting data would be inherently skewed towards a particular result.
Imagine you are taking orders for lunch for an office of coworkers and you were just told people that you are going l to order a hamburger for anyone who doesn’t explicitly say they wanted chicken and gave them a limited time to respond. You are very likely going to find some angry coworkers who wanted chicken but were stuck in a meeting. You will likely have a small population of people who realized it was Tuesday and had been really looking forward to tacos. And certainly, the vegetarians in the office are going to try to sabotage you professionally for awhile.
Happy to help, sorry rushed a little bit to finish the last reply. Effectively the point the original replier was trying to make is that the data set is polluted with bad data because the collection method is just terrible. So back to the analogy I started setting up earlier. If the goal is to get everyone food, you technically win… Job done… Good job. Food will arrive, some people will get the chicken they specifically requested, and maybe a few people who actually wanted hamburgers will be happy too…
But if the goal is to know what your coworkers actually wanted to eat and get it for them, then the only orders you will certainly get right would be for the people who actually wanted chicken, had the opportunity to reply, and took time out of their day to confirm there order. But you will also have people who maybe aren’t that keen on chicken but ordered it because they really didn’t want a hamburger.
Everyone else will now get a hamburger… That includes people who actually wanted hamburgers, people who didn’t have a preference, people with a preference but it’s something other than chicken or hamburgers, people who actually wanted chicken but didn’t get their order in on time, people who brought there lunch and planned on eating it instead, people who thought the message you sent was a scam and didn’t reply but would have said chicken if they had known it was actually legit, people who told you in person they wanted chicken and didn’t realise they still needed to email you, people you sent the email to but were actually on vacation or working from remote that day, etc. All of them, hamburgers… How exciting… LOOK HOW POPULAR HAMBURGERS ARE EVERYONE! I can’t believe hamburgers beat chicken! Can you believe that 67.3% of our office is such fans of hamburgers?!
Basically the results of a poll constructed like in the original post would be utterly trash, because the method being used is horseshit and not how any serious poller would/should ever conduct a poll.
Beautiful! Yeap that’s a very clean parallel and also extremely important in that field as well.
Since this has turned into a lovely exchange I want to offer one more point for your consideration.
Where the outcome of marketing data typically intends to position a product or service in to it’s most profitable position, and the quality of the data produced can be somewhat validated by future sales/market share/market depth/etc.
Polls like the one we are discussing aren’t constrained in the same manner and may be maliciously and purposefully designed to generate biased data. Humans are inherently vulnerable to hostile psychological manipulations. If this poll specifically isn’t just an outright scam intended to get its recipient to click on some link that load a payload of malware, it is certainly designed to purposefully create skewed empirical data.
Not everyone, but certainly a small minority of people who may have not necessarily felt certain about where they stood either direction could look at the results of a poll like this and might find a tinge of doubt in the back of their heads. This sort of tactic hopes that a person will feel a paranoia that everyone else seems to know something significant that they don’t and drive social anxieties up. Again, not always, but also not uncommonly, we can find ourself doubting even deeply felt personal resolve on a topic or position if it feels like the vast majority of people disagree with us. This sort of cognitive bias warfare isn’t intended to immediately flip a persons perspective, but rather it’s designed to soften a persons resolve and introduce enough doubt that they may become susceptible to being flipped later. It’s why we need to embrace healthy skepticism and be willing to be more stoic with how we consume numbers others prepped for us.
True, but also there are consequences of regulated capitalistic systems where the regulatory bodies become fascistic. And I mean in the traditional (actual) definition of fascistic and not just the way it gets thrown around modernly.
All good my dude… It didn’t make sense to me on my first past either so I figured that it might have gotten you in the same spot too. Just glad to see the community is not throwing down votes at ya anymore, because your comment just felt like an honest misread. Cheers.
Yikes this is getting drawn out and silly, eh. I’ll save us some time.
You win.
But one thing that I couldn’t help but chuckle at is your interpretation of the coffee capitol point.
You live in a hockey capitol. That doesn’t make you an expert, but I bet if you wanted to buy a hockey stick you would have a number of stores carrying top gear… If you wanted to see a game you probably have a number of hockey teams from pro to amateur you could go watch live.
I have direct access to three of the top 20 roasters in the country. I’m fortunate to have access to some of the best coffee in the world regardless if I’m an expert or not.
And this is sort of the point overall… You added so much of your own arguments to my position that you aren’t even arguing with me or the points that I’m making.
I’m not hiding behind subjectivity, I was the one who posted the video “negating” my so called “opinions”. You still think I did that as a mistake. Which I think is the second example that shows you are coming to this discussion in bad faith.
It’s no wonder you recommend introspection, given you have been arguing only with your interpretation of my opinion.
How do you gather? You think there isn’t many ways to decaffeinate beans or that some of them aren’t gross? Or that most ways used to decaffeinate beans doesn’t make the coffee taste bad?
These are the very points James makes in the first 2/3rds of the video.
The only point that he and I might delaminate on was that all decaf is blasphemous, and that’s a stretch because he never talks about the religious criminality of drinking coffee?
Why do you think I would offer a video to people about decaf that I didn’t watch? Hint: I don’t hate decaf coffee.
Opinions, such as “all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy” are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can’t even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.
Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
This is the silliest shit I’ve ever discussed on the Internet. I will say kudos to you for keeping things mostly amicable. It’s been awhile since I’ve had an argument on topicality and it’s been entertaining for me. Thanks my friend, best wishes.
It would be wonderful if you could just block people you disagree with and leave this shit in the 40’s. We really don’t need to see a reemergence of people trying to remove Jewish sympathizers from public spaces. Calm down there Ilse Koch…
A federal court in California has ruled that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza “plausibly” amounts to genocide, but dismissed a case aimed at stopping US military support for Israel as being outside the court’s jurisdiction....
That Blue MAGA outreach... (lemmy.world)
Horrible voter outreach.
Never Forget (mander.xyz)
bugs (mander.xyz)
"I want to live forever in AI" (lemmy.ml)
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/14869314...
More Human than Human by Rob Zombie (lemmy.ml)
Name this (lemmy.world)
Fish slice? Spatula? Or something else?
Junior Dev VS Machine Learning (lemmy.world)
Please ban this user (lemmy.world)
@thewut comes in just to make comments alleging jewish conspiracies, please ban them
Israel’s campaign in Gaza ‘plausibly’ amounts to genocide, US court finds (www.theguardian.com)
A federal court in California has ruled that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza “plausibly” amounts to genocide, but dismissed a case aimed at stopping US military support for Israel as being outside the court’s jurisdiction....