I compared it to the "BS '1 in 5' studies" because those studies are incredibly dependent on response rate to even out self-selection bias, just like your study. The key was asking about response rate (which you still haven't posted, BTW), instead seizing on my use of "BS" to describe something else.

Better far right than far wrong

_________________

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

_________________

Why focus on response rate? That's your point so the onus is on you to validate it. When i speak of minimizing racism this what i'm referencing. It's "oh this can't possibly be true" reaction to something you don't agree with. The fact remains that these were the results.

_________________

The modern left has more contempt for human life than the Nazi's. But the modern left lacks a tool as powerful as the centuries of Prussian military tradition that made the Nazi's so capable of imposing themselves on others. Well, at least for now.

We really need to minimize racism

_________________

Happy New Year!

_________________

Because response rate is how you understand the likelihood of a biased sample. Extrapolating from a biased sample, at least without understanding the bias and minimizing its impact on the extrapolation, is bad science.

Let's say you want to determine whether a coin is biased or true. To do this, you set up a coin-flipping machine in an enclosed space, and have it flip 100 sets of 10 flips each. You suspect the coin is true, and thus would be looking for something close to 50% of the sets to be biased towards heads, and another 50% to be biased towards tails, such that the set imbalances cancel each other out (let's say no more than 1 heads/tails imbalance). You set your coin machine up to do its thing, with a camera to observe and verify results, then go about your other business. At the end, you look at the video, and realize that due to a malfunction, the camera only recorded about 20 sets of flips, and in those recorded sets you found 14 "biased" sets in favor of one side of the coin. The empirical evidence points to a biased coin—after all, 70% of observed trials showed bias—but you know there were trials that you never got to see, trials that might point to an influence of random chance in the cluster of "biased" sets you actually observed. The coin could still be biased, but you would be (or should be) uncomfortable declaring the coin biased based on a "response" rate of 20% that returns an unusual result.



So you're not actually interested in good science, you're interested in posting scientific-sounding things and having them not be challenged. You have just equated "good science" (questioning results and looking for evidence) with "minimizing racism". Thank you for being so clear about it. Good science is minimizing racism. Thanks, LTG.

No the scientific portion has already been conducted but you seek to reinterpret it to fit your worldview. If you seek to extrapolate response rates that is your journey not mine.

_________________

If the response rate and accounting for same have already been done, then why has it taken you so long to post them? Nothing in what you posted of that study mentioned response rate nor any kind of correction for sample bias. Thus, the response rate and how the study accounted for them are begged questions, and my hunch is that there was no correction made.

Once again, you demonstrate that you are not really interested in science, you are interested in posting things and labeling anyone that challenges them as a racist/alt-Right-er. And before you get your pants in a bunch about "SHOW ME WHERE I CALLED YOU A RACIST": You have been going through my post history, literally all morning, bumping threads with quotes of me in an obvious attempt to imply that I'm a racist. You want to know why people on the board so often say you call others racist? This is why. You imply people are racist literally all the time, and people are sick of it, and you.

If it were 1% then the report wouldn't be considered "scientific sounding" either. Herein lies the problem.

_________________

If the response rate were 1%? Yeah, no shit, because it wouldn't be scientific. Extrapolations based on a 1% response rate, even when the potential pool of respondents is 5 million people, is especially bad science when the thing in question is as varied and dynamic as political views.

I have already illustrated my point. I'm done. This is the essence of each and every discussion involving you. Let's turn it into an academic exercise so that the original point is somehow lost in the shuffle.

If you have a problem with the response rate (which incidentally only you seem to have the problem) then do research on it. I'm fairly certain that if it were something that coincided with your way of thinking you wouldn't have a problem.

That's why i posted the stuff about Charlottesville. Did you provide such inquiry when it involved that particular piece of reporting? Or did you find a single source and let it fly? We both know the answer to that.

_________________

I'm referencing poll results. Response rate is for you yet again.

_________________

Get this through your head: No matter the results, the questions about response rate and bias correction are valid, as is the question about the meaning of "acceptable" as used in the polling question.

I'm not holding your hand through this again.

If its a legit question then find an answer or don't. You have difficulty with logic. Its your search. What part of that don't you understand? Simply asking whether there is a problem with response rates doesn't mean that there is a problem with response rates.

It is another one in a long line of feeble attempts to discredit something that you don't agree with. It invariably becomes a tedious discussion regarding what the definition of "is" is. Tiresome and boring to be honest.

_________________

Questioning a study is not the same as discrediting a study. It was once an active part of academia. Now, not so much.

I don't think it's fair to call him alt right either.

Having said that, one can understand why you may feel the way you do ltg.

JLN questions a scientific study in one thread, while posting as fact that Trump is being attacked by posting opinions of lawyers that side with him, that have NO knowledge of what Mueller is doing.

_________________

It is a problem if you exhibit bias by comparing it to a study that you consider "B.S.". Scientific studies are supposed to be devoid of bias.

_________________

Asking what questions were used in a study is pretty basic stuff.

The uneven nature of his responses and logic don't make him alt right or anything else necessarily.

_________________

I think JLN is extremely partisan but not racist or alt right or Nazi or whatever similar label that's used. That's how his posts read to me. I can understand how someone may not agree.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

There's a growing distinction between the alt-right and the "alt-lite," the latter lacking the rampant antisemitism and violence of the former while concentrating on more innocuous things like minor culture-war issues and general media whoring. Mike Cernovich, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Milo, and Paul Joseph Watson can all be considered alt-lite, plus scores of anonymous youtube mooks making interminable "just asking questions" videos.

_________________

I've always seen Cernovich referred to as a virulent racist, but I don't follow him on Twitter. Just weird to see that name right next to Dave Rubin, whom I respect.

Well, Cernovich has distanced himself from Richard Spencer and the like so that he can get more media exposure and sell more fake pills.

_________________

9% is probably way low.

_________________

The Nazis were into cosplay and shit, but I think they generally had the right idea. Especially economically. Hitler showed the world what you could do without usury, so the Jews made an example out of him and dragged out their "6 million Jews" thing which had been around since at least the 1900s (decade) to come up with a Holocaust that would make Hitler the most evil guy forever.

But then again Jews love to put crosses everywhere as a reminder that they killed their own god so i mean, you know, c'est la vie right? Know your place, goyim, the Talmud says god created the goyim to serve Jews because beasts serving jews would be beneath the Jews. I don't remember God saying that but if the Jews said it it must be gospel cuz they're God's chosen people: just ask them.

So if their god came back they'd prolly try to kill him/her/whatever, but you know, a funny thing about Nazis.... You know full 14/88? Heil Hitler? https://youtu.be/JFT7hNhop7w well lol you COULD spell nazi not-see but then again HOW could you nazi see that coming?

_________________

That was . . . weird.

Muh 6 gorillion

_________________

I wonder how many would agree with communist or socialist views if they were presented blindly to the answers

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

We're a quasi socialist nation.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

but not many in the population would agree with the label even if it fit the definition

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.