|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Apparently a fair number have also never heard of "someone entirely new". Like, they just can't conceive of any human being beyond those that were presented to them on that list. There's also the possibility that there were a few people going "lol Hillary Clinton? Never heard of her!" as a joke. You'll get a few "no" responses even if you poll people on "do you need oxygen to live?"
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Apparently a fair number have also never heard of "someone entirely new". Like, they just can't conceive of any human being beyond those that were presented to them on that list. Someone I've never heard of? Hmm, I dunno, I've never heard of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Remember that polls are just incredibly lovely as a method of gathering data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Why wouldn't everyone vote for the imaginary candidate of their dreams?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
SupSuper posted:Why wouldn't everyone vote for the imaginary candidate of their dreams? Historical trends of Democrat candidates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
BRASIL NÃO É UM PAÍS PEQUENO
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
 Breakdown of presents your true love gives to you over Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
The “rings” are also birds, specifically ring‐necked pheasants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Um, isn't people (12+11+10+9+8) 50/78 = 64% (or 5/12 = 42%)
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
You get a partridge on all twelve days. Two turtle doves on the last eleven. Three french hens on the last ten. And so on. You get 184 birds, 40 rings, and 140 people, including 66 members of the aristocracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:A small portion of Americans are so disengaged that they have apparently never heard of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden A small portion of any phone poll participants are drunk, high, mentally ill, hard of hearing and/or immigrants who only barely understand the questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Apparently a fair number have also never heard of "someone entirely new". Like, they just can't conceive of any human being beyond those that were presented to them on that list. In the context of "how would you feel about them running for president", I kind of feel like "never heard of them" is a fairly rational response, compared to "makes no difference" (of course who is running for president makes a difference, at least in theory), "Excited!" (I wouldnt be excited if this new person is a bag of dicks like elon musk or some poo poo) or "Shouldnt run" (if the person I've never heard of has policies I agree with and has a good chance of winning then they should run).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:A small portion of any phone poll participants are drunk, high, mentally ill, hard of hearing and/or immigrants who only barely understand the questions. Everyone on cspam is at least two of those things, and we're the best source of political news on the inter net.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
What if I want someone to run because I think they would be a spoiler candidate and thereby aid my preferred candidate? By process of elimination, I’d have to say “Excited”, but that’s a misleading thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Sometimes a variety of responses like "don't know," "not sure," or "refused to answer" are lumped under a single category when presenting the data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Apparently a fair number have also never heard of "someone entirely new". Like, they just can't conceive of any human being beyond those that were presented to them on that list. I feel like that's the number of people who pick wiseass answers like [ ] Yes [ ] No [X] All of the above Edit: oh hay, another page
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
I've been working with survey data the last few years and we get 2-3% of every sample saying they see or hear things other people cannot, which is considered completely normal for the non-mentally ill population. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Ghost Joe Biden is real and strong and he's my friend
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I've been working with survey data the last few years and we get 2-3% of every sample saying they see or hear things other people cannot, which is considered completely normal for the non-mentally ill population. ToxicSlurpee posted:There's also the possibility that there were a few people going "lol Hillary Clinton? Never heard of her!" as a joke. You'll get a few "no" responses even if you poll people on "do you need oxygen to live?" The Cheshire Cat posted:Apparently a fair number have also never heard of "someone entirely new". Like, they just can't conceive of any human being beyond those that were presented to them on that list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I've been working with survey data the last few years and we get 2-3% of every sample saying they see or hear things other people cannot, which is considered completely normal for the non-mentally ill population. A lotta folks have lost their high frequency hearing and can't tell when an old as gently caress CRTs has a high pitched scream. But yeah surveys generally are gonna have a lot of misresponses even when you aren't being a dumbass and giving teenagers the option of claiming they are fifty pound seven foot tall adopted quadruple amputees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
TinTower posted:You get a partridge on all twelve days. And also assorted cruft that comes with all of it, like 12 trees and sufficient cows* to occupy all 40 maids. * Note: the cows might actually be goats, or some other milk-producer. It's barely possible they're almonds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DataProgress/status/1076886420843831298 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
TinTower posted:You get a partridge on all twelve days. Funnily enough,I made this graph the other day: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
Are the graphs critiquing it actually better? They picked a point size that means you lose the sense of distribution density, which is somewhat important for judging whether there's a trend or a bunch of random dots. The NYT 'trend line' is stupid and bad, but I get a better sense of the data from their graph. Also, their poorly implemented trend line matches what they promised in their title. The thing that should have been fixed was switching the axes. Whether the data should include social security is a completely separate argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
Genuinely want to know their R2 for those. Just how many places there are after the decimal before we get to the first number which isn't a zero.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
I'm less shocked by the correlation in the second one and more by the fact that there are apparently 37 flavours of cap'n crunch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 09:00
|
|
|
Well not simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:37 flavours of cap'n crunch. In a row?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Aside from the obvious, there’s a charming kind of stupidity in the implication that plane size is the limiting factor on how many people use air travel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Aside from the obvious, there’s a charming kind of stupidity in the implication that plane size is the limiting factor on how many people use air travel. actually it’s because bigger planes can carry more autism spray to add to the chemtrails
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Works even worse because the data is bad: the 747 was first flown commercially in 1970, so the autism number from 1996 is completely irrelevant. It's still in production so the data point might as well be 2018 as 1996.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I'm less shocked by the correlation in the second one and more by the fact that there are apparently 37 flavours of cap'n crunch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItiwFQIY6lU
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's possible for this to be worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Oh, it's always possible. Search your feelings, you know that's true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Nuevo posted:I'm not sure it's possible for this to be worse. My brain's refusing to process it. Is it comparing entirely different sets of objects in the bike counts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Somfin posted:My brain's refusing to process it. Is it comparing entirely different sets of objects in the bike counts? The lengths of the bars are not what I’d have chosen for those values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The lengths of the bars are not what I’d have chosen for those values. No way, 8.54 million is definitely only about 2/3 of 5.6M. Actually laying the numbers out like that, I'm wondering if they just hosed up and got the labels flipped. The bar sizing would be pretty accurate if it was the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The lengths of the bars are not what I’d have chosen for those values. Oh, that part wasn't what my brain was breaking on, that was a clear fuckup. I'm noticing the asterisk and wondering if they're comparing different sets of bikes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2018 06:16
|
|