Y2HH

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) I don't know that I agree with this. I have a 7.1 setup and tuned right, with the right speakers, you can here the difference. I've got my set up in my basement, so there's some space, but you don't need some gigantic theater-like room to hear the difference. Yes, you "can", but it's not ideal. The bigger the room the easier it is to decipher. In a smaller room, while you can decipher the difference, it's almost negligible. In that same room most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference from 5.1 and 7.1, but the larger the room gets, those same people CAN.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:55 AM) I don't remember you explaining this before, but I appreciate you sharing it. I guess my comment on that would be that a team of undergrads taking polls isn't the same as a professional, competent political scientist taking polls. But this ultimately leaves you with no real way to determine policy preferences or examine any large-scale issues with any degree of confidence. Oh, and sorry for calling you a moron earlier. You're not a moron. I just sometimes let my emotions get the best of me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:55 AM) I don't remember you explaining this before, but I appreciate you sharing it. I guess my comment on that would be that a team of undergrads taking polls isn't the same as a professional, competent political scientist taking polls. But this ultimately leaves you with no real way to determine policy preferences or examine any large-scale issues with any degree of confidence. I'd say that undergrads would have less at stake than a political strategist. A quick example of poll fixing would be location. I could just cite "Downtown Chicago" in my methodology, and it would be true. But that "downtown Chicago" location could be outside an Apple store. If I polled 200 people in that specific location, what kind of people do you think would end up being the majority polled? I can tell you now, it would be liberal leaning people. Now if I move just a bit north to the Gold Coast...I bet 200 people would yield a much more republican leaning result. It's just a guess. But depending on what results I was looking for, I'd simply move to a location that would lend the best chances at the results I want... And my methodology saying "200 random people in downtown Chicago", wouldn't be a lie. My results, however, would be totally compromised despite my listed methodology.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:49 AM) You post-modernist, you. But yes, this is a recognized problem in the field and one that good, legitimate pollsters strive to be cognizant of and correct for. I've explained this before -- at least I think I have. I did my entire college project on poll taking (I got an 'A' BTW). I stood out in the streets (random locations downtown) and took random made up polls for months to do this project. The subject matter was far reaching, anything from questions about finance to government to automobiles. My aim was to show that I could "fix" a poll in any way I wanted to fix it IN SPITE of using random people. Further, the experiment showed that depending on WHO on my team took the poll, it would ALWAYS sway in the favor of their own opinions on the specific subject matter, but not intentionally. It just happened, because I believe subconsciously, they wanted it too. I came out of that experiment NOT liking polls, and having NO trust in them. So in that regard, when it comes to polls -- even completely legitimate ones -- I'm compromised.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) How do we know anything for sure? How do I know you're real? How do I know I'm real?! There are some things we just know. This is how I feel about polls -- in a strange way -- I think the people taking them are more often than not compromised by their own opinions, whatever they may be. Watch this video about religious people being morally compromised: http://videosift.com/video/The-Religious-M...d-Demonstration It's exactly how I feel about MOST pollsters. ;D

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) Even leaving deliberate shots at NJ aside, NJ is not a representative sample of Fox viewers. In journalistic integrity or quality? Sure. They're both garbage. But in terms of deliberate bias? No, Fox takes the cake on that one by a long shot. I disagree. I think MSNBC is JUST as biased. I just took a poll of this and 4 out of 5 people agreed with me. So I'm right. A poll said so. I'll post my methodology later.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) That's why there's background questions before the poll questions to ensure you get a representative sample. Look, you don't need to convince me that there are ways to make s***ty, biased polls (see the recent one in the Rep thread!). I don't particularly care about this poll beyond pressing you on your claims that the questions were deliberately picked to make Fox look bad, because imo if that claim is true that still makes Fox look bad. Maybe even worse if people can intuitively guess which basic current events information Fox viewers don't understand. That's not really my point in all of this. I think that SAME poll can be turned on it's ear and yield opposite results just as easily. The sample size here is simply too small. It needs to be FAR more than 4 questions, and FAR more than the amount of people they polled to even come close to an acceptable size.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) 1. There really is no point discussing any polling data with Y2HH, because he's made it pretty clear that any poll is useless. On your point, it's not that I feel polling data is "useless", it's just untrustworthy. Because I believe people have an agenda, I feel most, if not all polls are compromised. IF their methods, as written, were actually followed, perhaps it's believable data. But how do we know that for sure?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) Well, yeah, that's how you construct non-biased samples. Sure, if they were in fact "random". I can conduct a poll here in Chicago via the phone. Do you know the easiest way to fix that poll? With the use of the Prefix code. How about I poll 200 "random" people, 100 from the buck town area, and 100 from the englewood area. Sure, they're "random", but I bet the results they yield will be VASTLY different.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:27 AM) So if you had read that, why did you make your "I bet they asked the dumbest people ever on the streets!" post? You didn't really question the poll, though. You immediately declared it "f***ing stupid" and deliberately biased in its question selection. You still haven't really shown how. I've already said that you're absolutely correct that the article was an overstatement of the results. It's just a generalization. Streets, phone, etc...all the same BS. They asked RANDOM people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) How are polling results not empirical data? Because by substituting "Emperical Data" in place of "poll", you lend it to scientific method. IE: A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Polls, which they can be technically called "empirical data", it's unfair to say they are. By your own admission, there are many bad polls out there. Lending them all equal credence by using the words empirical data is bulls*** and a word play. EDIT: You tried to make it sound like I dismiss science/the scientific method by substituting that I dislike polls with the words 'empirical data'. I didn't like what you did there, either. I do believe in science. Polls on the other hand, I don't like, never have, and never will. So don't substitute my hate of "polls" for the hate of "empirical data". They are NOT exchangeable when it comes to this.

To anyone that CONTINUES saying I didn't read how they got their data -- shut the f*** up. Please. I did read it...and for kicks, this is f***ing how. The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 612 adults statewide was underwritten by WFDU-FM Radio and conducted by telephone using both landlines and cell phones from Oct. 17 through Oct. 23, 2011, and has a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points. OMG IT MUST BE 10000% ACCURATE AND TRUE. Nothing like questioning anything. I guess even on Soxtalk the liberal hive mind will attack you because you QUESTION A f***ING POLL that was conducted by telephone via landlines and cell phones.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:15 AM) ...they polled them. The study paper that was linked to takes like TWO minutes to read. You could have read all these things (what were the questions, who was polled, how were they polled, etc). I DID read all those things. And? They polled someone and asked do you watch Fox...and anyone could have just said sure, even if it's a lie.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) No, you were saying the study's methodology was bad. That's not the same as complaining about a headline being too broad. Right, because they knew ahead of time that the Fox viewers would be so uninformed? The only reason you're attacking the poll is because you don't like the results. Because it WAS bad. And the only reason your defending the poll is because you do. Also, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Considering in my first post I said most people are uninformed regardless of what news they watch. For the historic record here. I attack ALL polls with impunity. Not just this one.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) How IS it? I just listed the two cherry picking scenarios and neither applies. Because they're the major current events? What about those questions is biased against Fox News viewers? It's not like they asked "What joke did Jon Stewart make about so-and-so?" or "What color was Rachel Maddow's suit?" They polled 612 New Jersey residents on the phone. It's nice that you would have gotten all 4, but the point is, that Fox News watchers as a whole are less likely to. How do they know those 612 new jersey residents were Fox viewers?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:07 AM) Unless they knew ahead of time that Fox viewers were less likely to know the correct answers, I don't see how you can possibly accuse them of cherry-picking. They're not policy-oriented questions but simple knowledge-of-events questions. Why would they have a reason to assume Fox viewers knew less about those topics? If they did have a good reason, doesn't that still say something about Fox? You already know how I feel about polls, so why bother getting into this again? There are so many questions about such studies. Who did they ask, again, I ask this because I watch Fox, and I could have answered all 4. How did they get these people? Did they look for the most retarded looking schleps on the street and ask, hey, do you watch Fox news?! Great, answer these 4 questions then!!!! This is dumb. The fact you guys want it to be true again, highlights exactly what I said earlier. This poll was tailored to you. So was the story/headline.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) Right, and if they had a good inclination that Fox viewers really didn't know the basic outcomes of a major event like the uprising in Egypt, well, that's still an indictment of Fox. But where Y2HH does have a valid point is in the overgeneralization and overstatement of the results. This is a pretty limited range of topics, and making broad pronouncements based on four questions is pretty weak. This is exactly what I'm saying. Also, he highlights exactly what I said about this poll and who it's intended for. This poll was tailor made for HIM, and people like him. He already believes Fox viewers are dumb/uninformed. So of course he's here defending the poll. He's even going out of his way to accept the generalization of it's results based on 4 questions. Like I said, people believe what they want to believe.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:00 AM) 7.1 is like 3d movies at this point. The technology is there, but unfortunately there are very few movies that you can buy for the set up. I bet there's actually less 7.1 movies than 3d movies, though obviously that's eventually where movies are going. 7.1, to work properly, requires a VERY VERY big room. Without enough space between the speakers, you lose the ability to decipher where it's coming from.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) Unless they (a) asked more than 4 knowledge questions and dumped the ones with results they didn't like or (b) purposefully asked questions which Fox News viewers were somehow less likely to know, how is it cherry picking? How is it NOT cherry picking? They used 4 questions. Why did they use THOSE 4 questions? The headline is pretty general. It says Fox news viewers are dumb, and NRP listeners are not. Turns out it's only in relation to 4 specific subjects. Also, who did they poll? Had they asked me, a Fox viewer, I would have answered every last one of them.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) How was your assumption right? You guessed that they polled on a single subject that Fox News viewers would be less likely to know. They polled on 4 separate subjects which have all been big news as of late. How do any of those four questions give a disadvantage to Fox? Hell, one of them (leading Rep candidate) arguably favors Fox News. It was right because the headline reads that Fox news viewers are less informed than NPR listeners. Period. Then they go on to list specific subjects in which they were less informed. This is counter to the headline which is a pure generalization. If that doesn't clear up why my assumption was right, then it's because you don't want it to be...even though it is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Do they distinguish between watching cable news and consuming any news at all? I watch exactly 0 minutes of cable news a month, what with not having cable television, but I get plenty of information in other places. The problem is, the headline tends to read that regardless of subject matter, Fox news viewers are less informed than people who watch no news at all. Their methodology, which you posted, then shows very SPECIFIC events in which Fox news viewers were less informed. The headline is misleading. To be fair, it SHOULD read -- "Depending on the subject, Fox news viewers CAN be less informed than those that don't watch news at all." So, in essence, I was right from the get go. The poll is f***ing stupid and their "methodology" was nothing more than cherry picking.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) These sentences work well together. You're saying you don't need to understand what the poll is about, making an assumption as to its intentions and construction in order to get a biased result. Then you explain why you believe that. I made an assumption on the "poll" and after reading the methodology you posted, it turns out I was right to make that assumption.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:34 AM) Here's the actual methodology if you're curious. Full disclosure I haven't read anything beyond "lol Fox News viewers are dumb!" headlines and the strange MSNBC/#OWS results http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/ I don't need to know the methodology to realize it's a purposefully biased poll. It's probably related to a single subject, so in that case Fox news viewers were uninformed -- on that SINGLE subject. Edit: I was right. They're cherry picking certain "stories" or "events" and saying that on that specific story, Fox viewers were less informed than those that watched no news at all. I find this claim highly dubious because it doesn't make any logical sense. If someone watched no news, how would they know these events happened unless they heard them from someone else? If that's the case, the Fox viewer could have just as easily known that had they had the same exact conversation with someone that told them. This is just flat out stupid. It's like they're TRYING to be biased, and know that the only people that will like the story are the ones that ALREADY THINK that Fox viewers are stupid. It's of my personal belief that MOST people are uninformed, regardless of what news they watch or do not watch. Most people tend to believe what they WANT to believe, and that's whatever they heard that jives with their beliefs. I don't "watch" any news program with regularity, but I'll watch Bill O's, and other various videos from time to time. I used to like watching Olbermann from time to time, too. I enjoy listening to opinion pieces. But that doesn't mean I take their word as gospel. If a story interests me, I usually go to multiple sources to see what it's about, and draw from that my own opinion of the "facts", which is often hard, because nobody reports facts anymore, regardless of what organization they work for. Final Edit: I watch Fox news -- and I bet I'm more informed than anyone they polled.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:44 AM) Do you have the problem of soxtalk logging you out if you switch to another device? Not really, and even if it does, since I allow certain passwords to "save" in the browser, if I click logon, the user/pass is already filled out so it only takes a second to log back on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:31 AM) So how the heck do you remember all of the passwords and log ins? See my post above this one.