StrangeSox

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) I really feel for these victims. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-arch...5/slow-to-react i encourage everyone to listen to Act One from this particular this american life. It talks about the fear that he held after being raped that he too would become a child molester. Another blogger, blogged a heartwrenching piece before killing himself about how no matter what, he couldn't help but feel filthy every day waking up. It's hard to know how to react. Child molestation and rape is awful, but we also can't treat them as if their entire lives are ruined. Too often these kids feel forever damaged, forever ruined because of something that is not their fault. I hope there are victims of child molestation that have gotten help and become stronger that can come out and let these kids know that they can still live a great life. This is true of adult rape victims as well. We label it as a heinous crime, which it is, but that way it is discussed gives victims a badge of shame, of being damaged goods who suffered a fate worse than death.

Bachmann may have leaked classified information last night, or if may have just been more crazy rants. But she does sit on an intelligence committee I believe so... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/23/bach...ing-gop-debate/ Oops.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) 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. 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:45 AM) Is that a duck-billed pladypus (sp?)? I think it's a pokemon character. It's used as :psyduck: smilie on another forum I frequent to convey that "omg!" sudden realization of your world being turned upside down, but usually ironically. edit: I believe most of the smilies I borrow from that other forum are 'borrowed' from SomethingAwful originally. edit2: did you know that the platypus is a monotreme, an egg-laying mammal?!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) 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. Well there's mathematical formulas for determining appropriate sample size for a given level of confidence. I don't know what that'd be in this case but for national political polls its only a couple thousand. I'd agree that more questions would be better, but question construction is critical in making sure that the right and wrong answers are clear and universally agreed upon and not dependent on a level of nuance.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) 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? How do we know anything for sure? How do I know you're real? How do I know I'm real?!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) LOL, awesome. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) 2. 612 respondents means you probably have less than a hundred for each news outlet, and I consider that way, way, way too small a data set to be reliable. The T-score calcs being used are using the 612 basis, which is not at all an accurate use of that test. This poll, in particular, is highly flawed. Plus, New Jersey. I don't think MSNBC comes near the level of open, blatant and deliberate bias that Fox does. It is nearly impossible to match that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) So apparently the key is to not admit bias no matter what. The key is to not make s***ty polls. Do you actually think that WSJ article showed anything other than "liberals are less likely to agree with conservative ideology than conservatives," that the questions only challenged liberal ideology and not conservative ideology and that the "enlightened" answers to the questions are not clear-cut correct answers to questions that are either contentious in academic fields or have vague, undefined definitions for important words? Are you really trying to make this dumb equivalency stick, so that you can point to one really bad WSJ article poll as evidence that other polls are also biased?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) It's just a generalization. Streets, phone, etc...all the same BS. They asked RANDOM people. Well, yeah, that's how you construct non-biased samples.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) 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 credence by using the words empirical data is bulls***. There's plenty of s*** science out there, too. But you said yourself that you reject all polling, which is pretty silly because there are plenty of good political scientists and poll-taking organizations out there to do careful, accurate work. Poll data is, in fact, empirical data and sampling is a central part of scientific research.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) He's trying to troll me, I think. also, pretty sure you meant despise, not depose. Or not? Yeah, phone-posting.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) Wrong. Polls are NOT f***ing empirical data. Moron. Your FYP is bulls*** and attempts to make me look like a moron. Thus me calling you one in return. At least have the balls to just come out and say it instead of hiding it behind some bulls*** post like you did. How are polling results not empirical data?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) Unless it shows liberals don't know Economics. Then by all means, question away. I linked to two articles, one explaining why that specific polling method was so terrible and going over why the questions were so terrible and actually biased, and another from the author of that original WSJ article admitting that his study was, in fact, heavily biased. Some polls are biased. Construction of questions in a poll is crucial. Order of those questions can be very important as well. The variety of the questions and interpretation of the answers is also critical. That some polls really truly are garbage, like that one you linked to, does not impugn all polls.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) Like hell it isn't. There has been an organized campaign for quite a while against Fox News. Hence these sort of polls and headlines. s***, why not just completely fabricate the data then if its all a massive liberal conspiracy against Fox News?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) For the historic record here. I attack ALL polls empirical data with impunity. Not just this one. fyp

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) 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. Yeah that's always an issue with any polling, and that sort of thing is looked into in political science studies. But "what news media do you consume" is not a question that is going to give motivation for people to lie.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) 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!!!! I know. You keep blurring the distinction between data and anecdotes. The results do not say that all Fox viewers are dumb and stupid. They show that, on these four major topics that represent a cross-section of current events, Fox viewers are less likely as a whole to know the correct answer. Talking about groups and individuals within a group is an important distinction. Also, you've clearly not read their methodology or otherwise you'd know how they conducted the poll. I do not "want" this to be true. I don't care if this is true. The most interesting part to me was the MSNBC/#OWS part. How you keep highligthing what you said earlier is your insistence that is isn't true well, because. But you haven't actually demonstrated or explained how the poll was tailored. You've merely asserted that it was.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) They polled 612 New Jersey residents on the phone. This is not exactly a representative sample of media consumers.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) 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. What articles are being written or what people say doesn't actually make the poll "f***ing stupid" or mean that they intentionally constructed it to make Fox look bad. Again, they'd have to have had precognition of the answers to those questions to do so. In which case they're really burying the lead. So, you're right in the sense that the headline is an overstatement but wrong in the sense that it was an intentionally biased poll.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) Well, that's the Yahoo headline Also headlines are going to be short generalizations. That's the point of a headline.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) How is it NOT cherry picking? They used 4 questions. Why did they use THOSE 4 questions? 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?