|
Focus groups is just qualitative polling though. Like I get why it sucks, but it's probably representative to a degree. In an ideal world opinions of others about your appearance wouldn't matter, but we very much dont live in one.
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:It's much easier to assess the quality of a normal poll by a frequent pollster than it is to assess the results of a (select selecting, selectively reported) focus group. It's not unscientific in principle, like any polling you can choose an unrepresentative sample, and you do have to work harder to interpret the data, but qualitative polling is widely used in social sciences of all sorts. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you get people in a group and one person says something assertively while laughing a bit, you'll probably find other people agreeing with it. Yeah it's not a great way to go about reporting the results, you're supposed to be looking at the reasoning behind it more than the replies themselves. But that wouldn't make for as good of a leak presumably. e: http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v204/n6/full/bdj.2008.192.html this is a good (free) article from the British Dentistry Journal about the fundamentals behind qualitative research methods, including focus groups. In particular: quote:Be prepared for views that may be unpalatably critical of a topic which may be important to you Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:The 90s? Ah, such sweet memories. My family plunging into abject poverty thanks to neo-liberalism, each night's dinner being either tea and crackers or potatoes in some form, yeah, those were fun times. Which South American (I think) country are you from again, if you don't mind me asking too much? I'm kinda curious and right-wing governments (and some left-wing ones too to be fair) did a number on uhh quite a lot of them. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I don't know why you're posting about qualitative polling because we were talking about political focus groups. Focus groups is literally one of the few major forms of qualitative research. Or maybe you could read that BJD paper I linked, it's short and non-technical. Admittedly only the second half is about focus groups.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:You keep thinking I'm criticising the idea of a focus group as legitimate data collection tool in research as opposed to criticising the actual practice of political focus groups and the subsequent coverage they're given. In the absence of access to the actual research data we have no way of knowing if the results are reported dishonestly or not. It doesn't matter if we are talking about focus groups or structured interviews or whatever other survey method. e: There isn't anything magical about political focus groups. Or at least I can't find any reasonable academic article pointing them out as particularly problematic. And there is a huge amount of criticism of the way focus groups are used in Marketing research for example, so it's not like they would shy away. It just tends to be listed along with sociology and psychology as a discipline where they are commonly used. e2: One of several Google Scholar search strings I tried. e3: This is the closest thing I found, but it's not widely echoed or acknowledged at all (and focuses particularly on New Labour, funnily enough). It's listed as cited three times, once specifically by it's author, which given that political science is a fairly large field doesn't speak much in favour of it. Frankly it seems a bit like an anti-New-Labour political talking point. In particular, if you read it, she basically criticises every single political 'scientific' researcher (her use of commas) she cites. And the paper was published privately and anonymously at first. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I mean, the fact that the results are published on blogs and newspapers is probably a hint they're not actually trying to conduct research of any sort. This was a newspaper leak, and we have not seen anything to indicate that the study wasn't done impartially. If there even was one, as by the same logic they could have just made it all up to tarnish, uhh, Rayner was it? No need to run an actual study.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Heather Savigny is respected in the field particularly for her work on methodologies in politics, and she's not the only person who has critiqued focus groups from a methodological perspective. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations is also pretty highly ranked - private and anonymous prepublication is not uncommon as a way of getting some feedback first prior to journal submission too. When I get to a computer I'll dig up some other references on problems with focus groups (disclaimer: all approaches to quantifying social phenomena have their problems, their uses and their pitfalls). I know she is well respected, at least in gender studies and some other disciplines, certainly publishes a lot. For a relatively provocative article you'd presumably expect it to be cited more often though. I'd appreciate if you can dig up something else on the topic of political focus groups. And her critique of FG polling is a bit undirected if you read it. You could certainly criticise qualitative research for how difficult it is to do the methodology properly, but the specific trappings of it in political context don't seem to get written about much.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Quincey posted:It is ironic to hear of UKIP complaining about distasteful comments though, considering
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Strasserists are still full-on nazis though, just with more emphasis on "wealthy sniggering capitalist jews" rather than "wealthy sniggering capitalist jews" like ordinary nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Taear posted:I work in a place with You can apply exactly the same logic to any number of leftwing causes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-38971675 That already happened under the coalition for the first two years of employment, unless it's specifically stated in your contract otherwise (and even then things like disciplinary provisions etc. don't count, it has to be this specific magic phrase - so exactly like right-to-work in the US for the first two years). Given that short contracts are becoming increasingly common this is more worrying than it might seem. Nobody really cares. Of course there were other changes even worse for workers, like the work tribunal fee being introduced. But it reduced spurious charges against employers! (which have been exceedingly rare) Clearly the 80% drop in cases is exactly what this country needs. Not to mention zero-hour contracts and workfare, another wonderful invention. It would probably be quite hard to push employment rights even further, at least compared to how things were pre-2010. Can't actually see them going for full American-style right to work, particularly now that they have more working class voters under May than they did under Cameron. Not even most of the US is willing to put up with that. At a guess they might go against union rights instead, those still exist to some extent. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Fun fact: the word for 'Britain' and 'England' are the same in Chinese. Nahh that's the same thing, just a common expression for Britain and there's another formal one for the UK. It's like people from the US calling Britain England. e: dammit beaten. how many people here tried to learn mandarin chinese Private Speech fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Which I suppose also has the character for England and sort of implies that Brittany is little England? Places that were important in the 18th century were given their current chinese names first, so it went England -> the UK (basically 'the united kingdom of greater england'). e: Also there's another (phonetic) expression for Brittany/Britain/Great Britain which is: 大 不列颠 - Great Buliedian (GB) 不列颠 - Buliedian (Britain) 布列塔尼 - Bulietani (Brittany) Private Speech fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Much as I don't like Brexit, going "well how about we crack down on non-eu immigration more instead" does not really solve anything, as that has already been going on a lot under the coalition (post-study work visas, family visa changes, higher thresholds etc.). And of course the whole idea behind Brexit is the same if you swap EU for non-EU. Ultimately the popular Tory goal of reducing immigration to 'tens of thousands' a year is flat-out unachievable without draconian new restrictions on both EU and non-EU immigrants. Even stopping all EU migration wouldn't come close to being enough. Not to mention that family reunions and student numbers alone are higher than that. Of course that is likely intentional, as it means there will always be an 'immigration crisis' to 'solve'. Still it baffles me how someone can blame Tory anti-immigration measures on the EU. Particularly when those measures are occasionally opposed by the very same EU for being too strict (albeit not much, as without UK being in Schengen there is only a very limited amount of regulations concerning external immigration). Private Speech fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Paul Nuttall picked fans' pockets and urinated on medics at UKIP conference. I wonder if he's just really insecure about having been called nutter in school.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do you expect Corbyn to take a stand for non-EU immigration? Frankly there isn't much of anywhere left to go against non-EU immigration. Annual caps and American-style lottery maybe. e: I suppose you could make immigration much more of a lovely deal by removing the pathway to leave-to-stay/permanent residence/citizenship. Right now that's partly based on EU regulations but with Brexit it seems like an option. Under the current rules that would mean you could only spend 5 of any given 10 years in the UK, with no hope of any permanence except by marriage. I imagine that would discourage a lot of employment-related immigration. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Wait that's supposed to be abuse  It's remarkable sincerity really.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Can we get an actual competent left please? Like, a socialist-democratic party or something I donno. Can't we just import politicians from some nordic country or w/e? There was a social democratic party that split off Labour few decades ago, that's why lib dems now have the dem part in their name. It didn't work out very well. I wouldn't call the competent or particularly leftwing even.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:A very good post on why you never, ever want to invade Iran. All you have to do is capture their Hearts and Minds innit. Like by bombing weddings. Then putting posters of corpses as 'psyops' to discourage people from opposing you. It worked fabulously well in Afghanistan after all. Insurgency, what insurgency? It's only been 16 years. Actually it did probably work and after the first couple months they likely figured out a way of doing that to not make people into martyrs. Still the name is funny in a grim sort of way, particularly because the mind part mostly consists of bribing people to do what you want.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
This article about Middle England which was linked on wikipedia frontpage is pretty annoying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_England Hurr durr "the moral majority" with "strong work ethic and a highly developed sense of conscientiousness. " and "mainstream English and to a lesser extent British people, as opposed to minorities of all types (the rich or the poor, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, the politically active, the intelligentsia, etc.)". Private Speech fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Great in theory, but Leeds city council for example is already having to pay out millions a year in compensation to poor people whose housing it manages really fuckin badly. Still easier to get a slice of that money than if you have a regular old lovely small-time landlord.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:And Labour/Lib Dems Even more depressing Tories + UKIP have more than half of the electorate in absolute numbers. That's going to be really really hard to break. e: I suppose in theory it could split 25/25 uniformly distributed and let labour in eventually, but somehow that doesn't seem very likely. While technically UKIP may never have won a proper election they still are a sizable group of voters who support the current Tory policies at the very least. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Seeing them stood outside the court with "straight equality" placards, I don't think I could care less about their stupid case. If you're a pre-op trans and are attracted/get married to the opposite sex, I can kinda see the point? Maybe? But I guess you can still just get normal-married anyway, so whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Jose posted:Considering Blair cheated with Murdoch's wife I doubt he'd get good press either Yeah remember when that whole Iraq inquiry was going on. I certainly wouldn't call that good press (though they were hypocritical in a massive way since they were far more bloodthirsty than him back then, but hey when did ever matter to Sun).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Forced service owns and I'm glad you want new doctors to be indentured slaves to the nhs What happens to foreign-born UK-educated doctors who get considered unfit to practise? Seeing as they can't physically stay in the UK for visa reasons. Or is it just, lol they shouldn't have had something like that happen to them, bad apples it's their fault. Like it happens because of mental illness and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
croc suit posted:Thats actually an inverse correlation, leftists tend to be pedophiles. Well you'd know wouldn't you. Do you ever get mad about politics at your fellow pedophiles.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
To bring this thread back on track, Jeremy Corbyn is kinda bad IMO. He seems to care more about his pet causes like pacifism (like UK pacifism matters with the US being what it is), anti-nuclear, homeopathy, anti-globalism and whatnot else than actually fighting for concrete meaningful policies like banning zero-hour contracts, taking in more refugees, exposing 'budget responsibility' for the crock of poo poo it really is. I felt this way about him even back when he got elected and it's not like he's given me any reasons to change my mind. Then again I quit Labour over it's support for Brexit now, since that's something that really does matter for me, and I can't in good conscience support a party that would vote for it with a triple-whip, popular opinion be damned.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:In related news, the poo poo Milliband thinks lurching to the left is a bad idea because he thinks it doesn't work. You can't blame the PPE sorts for their multiple choice exams. David's even supposed to be the smart one. Nah he's always been the one saying whatever 'sounds right'. And on the right-side of the duo obviously. I think he's just trying to set himself up as opposition to Corbyn, that's what the moving left is code for. Because you see Corbyn is considered an old commie by everyone despite not actually being much of one anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Speaking of, the Daily Mail Online just ran a sympathy piece about Dagmara Przybysz, the 16 year old Polish girl who apparently hanged herself at school after suffering constant xenophobic abuse, in which they ask "What could cause people to act like this?" It's unfortunate that's the way it is but the name probably didn't help. Giving your daughter growing up in the UK the name Dagmara is not the greatest idea ever. It's not even a particularly nice/modern name in Slavic countries either, bit like calling her Doris or something (topical because of the storm). e: Oh she was born in Poland. Well that sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean strictly giving you kid the name Mohammed is probably not a very good idea in the UK either but maybe we shouldn't make suggestions like that? Yeah I know. It's a weird name for a young girl from a Slavic-language perspective though, it's kinda archaic, so it jumps out to you if you know what the modern names usually are. Not that that excuses anything of course.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm going to guess that the people who drive a 16 year old girl to suicide probably are even less up on modern slavic naming traditions than I am. I suppose. Whatever it was a dumb comment. The newer names do sound a bit less foreign in general though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
jabby posted:I don't know why you think a poor performance at a general election is going to convince anyone to change their ideology and suddenly support centrist neoliberalism. If anyone actually did that then the Greens/Lib Dems/UKIP would have no voters. People are going to continue to support socialism regardless of how popular/unpopular it is. The question is how many of them? And is supporting Brexit somehow socialism for you? Is 'people voted for something so it's mandatory now to do it' socialism? Because, you know, people as in the majority do support Tory plans and the current government. Does that somehow mean that Labour shouldn't oppose it? As far as I can tell your opinion is that Labour should take the position of 'rather hard Brexit than no Brexit'. Clearly what we are going to have is hard Brexit, with the government embracing it and in doing so following a popular mandate. Is that a reason enough for Labour to support the government in this? Is any hard brexiteer really going to go: fair enough, they were eventually forced to take that position and so they represent me better than Tories? That sounds suspiciously like the argument for Labour adopting austerity (and mind you they still haven't abandoned their commitment to 'budget responsibility' or the 'we overspent in the past' line) to chase Tory voters. It didn't work then, it's not going to work now. It's rather telling you call opposing Brexit 'supporting centrist neoliberalism'. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
jabby posted:Not everything has to be viewed through the prism of Brexit. Brexit is going to happen regardless of the stance of the Labour party. As much as possible I'd like them to work to soften it, but by the end of this parliament it will all be over. I care about the future direction of the country and to that end, the future direction of Labour. So, again, supporting Brexit puts Labour on the correct path for the future? And Labour has about as much ability to soften Brexit as it has to stop it. The ultimate form it takes (barring any amendments in Lords, which I gather you see less urgent than Micheal loving Heseltine) is going to be decided purely by government negotiators. After this vote passes there is nothing anyone else can do to influence it, short of somehow bringing down the government and getting elected (ahahahhahhahaaah good luck with this the way the polls are).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
jabby posted:Honestly? I don't much care whether Labour opposes Brexit entirely or pushes for soft Brexit. Brexit will be over by the next election, any party's 'position' on it has an expiration date. I want Labour to remain a socialist party and to push their ideological views like workers rights, healthcare, poverty, housing etc. Getting the public on side over those issues is more important and will help influence the government more than simply whether you plant your flag on 'leave' or 'remain'. It's a matter of framing though. Currently the government framing is that immigrants/past Labour profligacy are to blame for all these issues. Worker's rights - immigrants are willing to work in worse conditions and therefore erode your rights, migrants taking our jobs, not behaving properly in work/not capable of performing properly, Labour made the labour market too inflexible to operate, jobs going to overseas workers to exploit the poor dears who get them, etc. Healthcare - Labour overspending and foreigners taking up beds, using up our NHS (National means Britons only. I mean if you think about it it's reasonable enough), going to An'E too much because they don't know the British healthcare etiquette, going to doctor with the flu or their other imaginary issues (fun fact: minorities are much more likely to be misdiagnosed as malingering), etc. Poverty - Labour broke the economy, spent all the money, too much money goes on foreign aid, etc. Housing - Immigrants take up all the housing/we're full, etc. These are all either things I've heard when going door to door for Labour (did you ever I wonder), or things the government more or less directly said. Not opposing the narrative against immigration and Labour overspending, and indeed even adopting it, means that Labour is never going to have better solutions than Tories. Both of those narratives have to be opposed vigorously, and more importantly are false no matter how right they sound (and don't tell me that you don't find yourself nodding to some of them deep down).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Nonsense posted:Mayhaps it is people like you that make Labour rotten? Also do not pontificate on our poo poo. He's not Labour, he's a Tory troll at best. Possibly American too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 04:52
|
|