You have no argument. You are trying to pull a gotcha on a report you randomly googled and then didn’t read. Projecting that I didn’t read it, when I did. Clearly better than you. And now you’re trying to call this a Dunning-Kruger situation, when clearly you don’t understand how surveys work, how studies work, or possess the proper reading comprehension skills to actually understand and digest the information you are glancing at and speed reading.
However, you are right, this is a Dunning-Kruger situation, because YOU are not a researcher and YOU do not understand the caveat associated with surveys, especially self-administered surveys. (A distinction you clearly don’t understand).
You have no argument. You have no point. You are done. No go fuck off and continue to not vote while demanding change.
LOL, you are a fantastically stupid person who has somehow convinced himself he’s brilliant. You can keep repeating, “self-administered post-election survey,” but that just means, “survey that was conducted after the election, in which the participants administered the survey to themselves rather than being given the questions by a surveyor.” You think that means there was selection bias, but all of those steps took place after the selection process.
You’re reading a one sentence summary of a single process to verify one data point and thinking you understand the entire survey methodology. It’s like you’ve got the directions for baking a cake, and you’re only looking at the last step that says, “remove cake from refrigerator and cover with icing.” Then, when someone tries to tell you that you need to put the cake batter in the oven, you keep saying, “no, cakes go in the fridge, can’t you read, dumb-ass?”
It was honestly kind of infuriating at first, but it’s becoming funnier and funnier the longer it goes on. Please keep digging this hole.
We can dig this hole, but this is honestly funny to me because you just don’t understand.
Participants were randomly selected. This study was done three times and they randomly selected participants each time. On that total participants 50% agreed to participate. Then those 50% took a survey, which I have to remind you for the nth time, surveys ALWAYS HAVE A CAVEAT OF BEING POTENTIALLY INACCURATE. People lie or exaggerate on surveys all the time. Then those people were validated with election data to validate they did in fact vote. The potential inaccuracy here is how they rate themselves on the political spectrum. That’s fine.
The part you are very clearly missing and why it is selection bias, is because this isn’t just for a survey of those on the political spectrum and how often they vote. This is also a survey that shows those more interested in politics are more likely to agree to a survey about politics to begin with. It even says 50% decided not to participate. In that same study they even use Twitter as an example of those more interesting in politics. Well duh, you and I are commenting on a political memes channel on Lemmy. So we are more interested in politics and more likely to interact with political topics and vote. It’s very likely many people who are on the political fence or only vote for the president and not in mid-terms or down ballot are not interested in a political survey.
Those with strong opinions are interested in surveys to show their strong opinions. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but you continuously miss the mark. You have ZERO critical thinking skills and that buddy, is both hilarious and truly sad. The education system has failed you.
Wow, great point! Except for two things; first, if people with strong political beliefs were more likely to reply to surveys, would that mean that basically every political survey was inherently biased? Second, if you look under the section of Appendix A marked, “incentives,” you can see that they corrected for sampling bias by offering higher incentives to groups that have a lower response rate:
All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.
Anyway, do want to keep trying to prove that the Pew Research Center doesn’t know how to conduct a survey, or are you finally tired of digging?
It was very funny watching him go from misunderstanding, “self-report,” and, “post-election,” to attacking the methodology of the Pew Research Center because he couldn’t accept that, “leftists don’t vote,” a fact that he pulled out of his ass, wasn’t true. All this while deluding himself into thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room. Peak Reddit energy.
You have no argument. You are trying to pull a gotcha on a report you randomly googled and then didn’t read. Projecting that I didn’t read it, when I did. Clearly better than you. And now you’re trying to call this a Dunning-Kruger situation, when clearly you don’t understand how surveys work, how studies work, or possess the proper reading comprehension skills to actually understand and digest the information you are glancing at and speed reading.
However, you are right, this is a Dunning-Kruger situation, because YOU are not a researcher and YOU do not understand the caveat associated with surveys, especially self-administered surveys. (A distinction you clearly don’t understand).
You have no argument. You have no point. You are done. No go fuck off and continue to not vote while demanding change.
LOL, you are a fantastically stupid person who has somehow convinced himself he’s brilliant. You can keep repeating, “self-administered post-election survey,” but that just means, “survey that was conducted after the election, in which the participants administered the survey to themselves rather than being given the questions by a surveyor.” You think that means there was selection bias, but all of those steps took place after the selection process.
You’re reading a one sentence summary of a single process to verify one data point and thinking you understand the entire survey methodology. It’s like you’ve got the directions for baking a cake, and you’re only looking at the last step that says, “remove cake from refrigerator and cover with icing.” Then, when someone tries to tell you that you need to put the cake batter in the oven, you keep saying, “no, cakes go in the fridge, can’t you read, dumb-ass?”
It was honestly kind of infuriating at first, but it’s becoming funnier and funnier the longer it goes on. Please keep digging this hole.
We can dig this hole, but this is honestly funny to me because you just don’t understand.
Participants were randomly selected. This study was done three times and they randomly selected participants each time. On that total participants 50% agreed to participate. Then those 50% took a survey, which I have to remind you for the nth time, surveys ALWAYS HAVE A CAVEAT OF BEING POTENTIALLY INACCURATE. People lie or exaggerate on surveys all the time. Then those people were validated with election data to validate they did in fact vote. The potential inaccuracy here is how they rate themselves on the political spectrum. That’s fine.
The part you are very clearly missing and why it is selection bias, is because this isn’t just for a survey of those on the political spectrum and how often they vote. This is also a survey that shows those more interested in politics are more likely to agree to a survey about politics to begin with. It even says 50% decided not to participate. In that same study they even use Twitter as an example of those more interesting in politics. Well duh, you and I are commenting on a political memes channel on Lemmy. So we are more interested in politics and more likely to interact with political topics and vote. It’s very likely many people who are on the political fence or only vote for the president and not in mid-terms or down ballot are not interested in a political survey.
Those with strong opinions are interested in surveys to show their strong opinions. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but you continuously miss the mark. You have ZERO critical thinking skills and that buddy, is both hilarious and truly sad. The education system has failed you.
Wow, great point! Except for two things; first, if people with strong political beliefs were more likely to reply to surveys, would that mean that basically every political survey was inherently biased? Second, if you look under the section of Appendix A marked, “incentives,” you can see that they corrected for sampling bias by offering higher incentives to groups that have a lower response rate:
Anyway, do want to keep trying to prove that the Pew Research Center doesn’t know how to conduct a survey, or are you finally tired of digging?
“Everyone knows Pew Research Center is paid for by commies trying to get people to vote!”
Liberal talking point to Conservative?
It was very funny watching him go from misunderstanding, “self-report,” and, “post-election,” to attacking the methodology of the Pew Research Center because he couldn’t accept that, “leftists don’t vote,” a fact that he pulled out of his ass, wasn’t true. All this while deluding himself into thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room. Peak Reddit energy.