Pioneer1 Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 Why do I place more value on my personal experiences and observations than on statistics? Statistics and studies can be manipulated and fabricated; unless I'm drunk or high (which is extremely rare) my observations generally can't be. I understand that MY observations and experiences can't always be proved to others, however I take this position for my own personal satisfaction. Especially knowing how the racists love to manipulate figures, stats, numbers, and skew information to fit their agendas.
ProfD Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 Personal observations can confirm or corroborate facts but it mainly serves as a form of mental masturbation. Statistics provide real data to define and reinforce a position or belief. Well constructed arguments require both statistical data and analysis combined with relevant personal observation. Personal observation on its own doesn't verify or prove anything. Gotta produce receipts i.e. statistical data. 3
Pioneer1 Posted April 20 Author Report Posted April 20 ProfD To say statistics are real assumes that the figures are truthful and accurate. How is this confirmed? I believe some of the information in these statistics are not only outright fabricated depending on their respective agendas, but the deception and inaccuracy of some of these figures have been INSTITUTIONALIZED to be inaccurate. Take unemployment figures for example........ It's been known for a few decades now that when they calculate the unemployment rate...they don't count EVERY adult who is actually unemployed. For examples: -If you're locked up...you don't count. -If you're disabled or sick...you don't count. Now some may say those exceptions are acceptable....even though they are STILL adults who are part of the system and should be counted in my opinion. However..... -If you've been unemployed for OVER 6 MONTHS...you don't count! -If you've STOPPED LOOKING FOR WORK....you don't count! And in some cases...they ONLY count those actually receiving unemployment checks as being "unemployed". So if you quit or got fired under certain circumstances, or your unemployment insurance ran out.....you're not really "unemployed" according to the government! How can you trust statistics and figures arrived at by such methods?
Troy Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 59 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Statistics and studies can be manipulated and fabricated; unless I'm drunk or high (which is extremely rare) my observations generally can't be. We discuss this from time to time. Of course, your observations can be manipulated. The oft cited problem with "eyewitness" testimony is reflective of this. Of course, data can be presented in a misleading way or simply misinterpreted, but data beats anecdotes. 14 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: information in these statistics are not only outright fabricated Perhaps but that is a different argument. Lying whether it is in an anecdote or data is useless for increasing understanding. 16 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: How can you trust statistics and figures arrived at by such methods? If you understand what is being counted, then you can derive reasonable and logical conclusions from the data. In terms of unemployment how would your personal observations be superior to understanding any aspect of unemployment?
ProfD Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 18 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: To say statistics are real assumes that the figures are truthful and accurate. How is this confirmed? Take unemployment figures for example........ -If you're locked up...you don't count. -If you're disabled or sick...you don't count. -If you've been unemployed for OVER 6 MONTHS...you don't count! -If you've STOPPED LOOKING FOR WORK....you don't count! And in some cases...they ONLY count those actually receiving unemployment checks as being "unemployed". So if you quit or got fired under certain circumstances, or your unemployment insurance ran out.....you're not really "unemployed" according to the government! How can you trust statistics and figures arrived at by such methods? All of the data stated can be compiled and added to the analysis.
Pioneer1 Posted April 21 Author Report Posted April 21 I know many will say that not trusting "the data" or "the statistics" sounds like something a Trump supporting MAGA would say. However a lot of Trump's appeal.... Infact, a lot of the appeal Conservatives have with the poor and working class in general is that they appeal to people's "common sense" with plain talk. OFCOURSE the shit can be manipulated. So why SHOULD I trust some arbitrary figure "claimed" to be gathered by dilligent research? There used to be a time OUR people were the Conspiracy theorists and didn't trust the system because we knew it was subject to human error and manipulation. Now it seems so many of us...are going along WITH the program and those who are bucking "the system" are Trump supporters who question EVERY fucking thing including "the data" and "the media". I know they are racists and tend to support the data and media that supports THEM and THEIR agenda. But atleast they are CLAIMING to question the crap we're being fed in the media. I don't see a lot of Black people on television and in the media doing that anymore. Troy We discuss this from time to time. Of course, your observations can be manipulated. The oft cited problem with "eyewitness" testimony is reflective of this. True. I won't argue with this. But from a PERSONAL point of view.... Me knowing myself. I'll trust what I've WITNESSED before I'll trust some arbitrary figures some White folks put on a damn screen as if it were the gospel truth. How do we KNOW that shit is true? Just like anecdotes can be false, those collecting the data can lie too. They're human. Of course, data can be presented in a misleading way or simply misinterpreted, but data beats anecdotes. Not MY anecdotes because I don't lie to myself Ofcourse I wouldn't expect YOU to simply accept them just because....but as I said, for PERSONAL satisfaction I'd rather rely on my personal observations. And guess what.... If YOU or ProfD said something that went against the "official story" or was contrary to "the data"...I'd believe YOU TWO before I'd believe it. I used my personal JUDGEMENT when deciding who or what to believe. It rarely fails me. Perhaps but that is a different argument. Lying whether it is in an anecdote or data is useless for increasing understanding. Agreed. If you understand what is being counted, then you can derive reasonable and logical conclusions from the data. How can you derive a "reasonable" assessment of how many people are actually unemployed if they're OBVIOUSLY not counting large portions of those who are actually UNEMPLOYED???? ....we aren't counting housewives. ....we aren't counting homeless adults. ....we aren't counting those who've been out of work longer than 6 months. Well who the hell ARE they counting??? In terms of unemployment how would your personal observations be superior to understanding any aspect of unemployment? It wouldn't be superior on a LARGE scale because I don't know enough people let alone their personal employment situation to arrive at such a grand conclusion. However my understanding of their ERRONEOUS methods of gathering information WOULD help the researcher by raising alarms about how that information was gathered and why it shouldn't be trusted or even consdered. To answer your question in plain street language: "I may not know what it IS.... But I know what it AIN'T." It ain't the figures THEY'RE giving us. ProfD All of the data stated can be compiled and added to the analysis. If it's lies...or half truths, it ain't "data". Data is facts. If the figures are false, they aren't facts. Just a bunch of damn numbers on a screen or sheet that you're expected to BELIEVE and accept as gospel truth.
ProfD Posted April 22 Report Posted April 22 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: So why SHOULD I trust some arbitrary figure "claimed" to be gathered by dilligent research? How do we KNOW that shit is true? Well who the hell ARE they counting??? Data is facts. If the figures are false, they aren't facts. Just a bunch of damn numbers on a screen or sheet that you're expected to BELIEVE and accept as gospel truth. Nothing stops us from doing our own research and data collection. The real question is how badly do we want to *know* it.
Troy Posted April 22 Report Posted April 22 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I'll trust what I've WITNESSED before I'll trust some arbitrary figures This is why often your arguments become flawed, no one is talking about arbitrary figures stop setting up straw men. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It ain't the figures THEY'RE giving us. Again, you’re arguing semantics. Your definition of unemployment is not the same as the numbers released by the government because of all the things that you described. There are a variety of reasons why they count the number of unemployed people the way that they do. it doesn’t mean that the data are useless. It’s just not reporting what you understand as the number of people who are unemployed. still, we are left with the fact that you have no idea what the percentage of unemployed people are the best you can do is used to date that you have available account for any discrepancies that you feel are in the data than come up with the rough estimate, but again without the data all you can do is pull numbers out of your ass 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Data is facts. Well here too it depends. For example, you have no clue based upon your personal observations how many people are in the United States right now. In fact, no one knows exactly how many people are here. There’s a census taken every 10 years and that gives us a pretty good estimate. far better than any of us could Divine from walking around and making our own observations. no one not even the US government asserts that that census data are 100% accurate. Using your logic then it’s false and let’s just throw it out because it’s not a fact. But the reality is the number is good enough to do what we need to do with it in most cases.
Pioneer1 Posted April 22 Author Report Posted April 22 ProfD Nothing stops us from doing our own research and data collection. I was eventually heading in that direction. I was taking the more "scenic route" with my questioning who is collecting the information and why to illustrate why so many of our people shouldn't be blindly trusting it. Eventually WE need to be collecting the information and compiling the data we need and use. Troy This is why often your arguments become flawed, no one is talking about arbitrary figures stop setting up straw men. In many situations, they may as well be. Let me ask you a question..... Every day on the news there's a new poll out claiming "this" or "that" for things from politics, to religion, to food, to television shows and ratings, to thoughts on the economy, to race relations, etc... When was the last time YOU were contacted for a survey? Besides richardmurray's....lol. Again, you’re arguing semantics. Your definition of unemployment is not the same as the numbers released by the government because of all the things that you described. There are a variety of reasons why they count the number of unemployed people the way that they do. I know. And ONE of those reasons is to DECEIVE and CONFUSE the public about how high the unemployment rate is and convince the public that the economy isn't as bad as it really is. still, we are left with the fact that you have no idea what the percentage of unemployed people are the best you can do is used to date that you have available account for any discrepancies that you feel are in the data than come up with the rough estimate, but again without the data all you can do is pull numbers out of your ass You don't have to go to EITHER extreme....make up numbers or LIMIT the actual figures. Simply count...as best you can....those adults who are ACTUALLY unemployed. It's not perfect, but atleast it would be MORE accurate. For example, you have no clue based upon your personal observations how many people are in the United States right now. In fact, no one knows exactly how many people are here. There’s a census taken every 10 years and that gives us a pretty good estimate. far better than any of us could Divine from walking around and making our own observations. no one not even the US government asserts that that census data are 100% accurate. Using your logic then it’s false and let’s just throw it out because it’s not a fact. But the reality is the number is good enough to do what we need to do with it in most cases. I agree that simply walking around and looking wouldn't give us an accurate estimate of the people in the U.S. I also think the Census method....though not perfect...is MORE accurate than the method for attaining the unemployment rate.
Troy Posted April 22 Report Posted April 22 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Simply count...as best you can....those adults who are ACTUALLY unemployed. Please define unemployed, that would be a start. How old do you have to be to be considered unemployed if you are a 17-year-old who recently graduated from high school and not working are you unemployed? How about a 15-year-old dropout? How about a 16-year-old with a child? how about the handicapped? How about the elderly at what age do you stop counting people? Do you count the incarcerate, the ones working for slave wages. The larger question is how do you define a workforce? Again, we know that the department of labor statistics definition does not mesh with your definition. The question becomes what information would you gather from your stat that will be substantially different from the governments? Then factoring the time cost an energyof collecting the information. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: When was the last time YOU were contacted for a survey? I’m contacted all the time to fill out some stupid survey or answer some questions after dealing with someone in customer service. During a presidential elections it was even more frequent. I generally ignore them all occasionally I will fill out a paid survey or do a paid focus group, but if it’s a freebie and takes more than a few seconds, I’m not doing it. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: the Census method....though not perfect...is MORE accurate than the method for attaining the unemployment rate. Of course, an exhaustive method of counting is gonna be more accurate. The unemployment rates are reported monthly. The census is taken every 10 years. There are always trade offs between the effort and collecting the information the need for precision, the timelines of the information., etc @Pioneer1 there is a field of math that addresses the issue off sample sizes, margin of error, conference level, sampling method when it comes to collecting data. if there’s 340 million people in the United States and you wanna figure out if they’re going to vote or not and which candidate they will choose, you do not need to ask all 340 million people you only need a very small percentage of them to an answer very close to if you asked everyone. If you try to poll everyone, the election would be over before you even collected the data. Similarly, if it took even a year to collect and compile unemployment data, it would have no value because the number would have changed by the time it was reported the monthly number is good enough.
Pioneer1 Posted April 23 Author Report Posted April 23 Troy Please define unemployed, that would be a start. An able bodied adult UNDER retirement age who is NOT working or running a business. Period. Simple and easy to understand. Whether they are in between jobs, homeless, incarcerated, stay-at-home spouses/parents....as long as they are able bodied and NOT working then they are counted. The government obviously DOESN'T count most of these people. How old do you have to be to be considered unemployed if you are a 17-year-old who recently graduated from high school and not working are you unemployed? No. Because they aren't an adult. I can understand the argument for wanting to count 16 and 17 year olds, but a line must be drawn somewhere and in my opinion that line should be adulthood. How about a 15-year-old dropout? No, same reasoning. How about a 16-year-old with a child? No, same reasoning. how about the handicapped? No, they have to be able bodied. If they are handicapped adults, they should be getting SSI Although it should be noted that a lot of handicapped people DO work and run businesses. How about the elderly at what age do you stop counting people? Retirement age. 62/65/67 range Do you count the incarcerate, the ones working for slave wages. Yes, unless they're receiving a wage...any type of wage, no matter how unfair. Yes The larger question is how do you define a workforce? Irrelevant. I don't start from the productivity end (who was recently working and lost their job)....I start from the able-bodied adult end and deduce from there. Focusing on the active workforce itself to determine who is and isn't employed in society is like focusing on a prison to determine who is and isn't a criminal in a given society. Your scope is too limited. Come out of the bubble and place the entire society under examination. Again, we know that the department of labor statistics definition does not mesh with your definition. Or an accurate definition period. The question becomes what information would you gather from your stat that will be substantially different from the governments? Then factoring the time cost an energyof collecting the information. Time and cost are irrelevant to the truth. Either it IS or it ISN'T....regardless as to how much it costs or how long it takes to find out. It's a governmental organization and the government literally prints money out of thin air so money shouldn't be an object. As far as time and manpower goes....I can see those being legitimate issues. However we can't used that as an excuse to put out false and inaccurate figures. @Pioneer1 there is a field of math that addresses the issue off sample sizes, margin of error, conference level, sampling method when it comes to collecting data. When it comes to a population as diverse and spread out as the United States..."samples" are a poor representation of the whole. Remember we're dealing with PEOPLE and COMMUNITIES; not holograms where every pixel is a miniature of the whole image. A good illustration would be "sampling" a 7 course meal. If your only "sample" were the braised string beans....that wouldn't be a good representation of the entire meal. Not the potatoes, or the meat, or the gravy, or the drinks. if there’s 340 million people in the United States and you wanna figure out if they’re going to vote or not and which candidate they will choose, you do not need to ask all 340 million people you only need a very small percentage of them to an answer very close to if you asked everyone. If you try to poll everyone, the election would be over before you even collected the data. I understand your point. Similarly, if it took even a year to collect and compile unemployment data, it would have no value because the number would have changed by the time it was reported the monthly number is good enough. I agree. However the fact remains that the weekly/monthly numbers compiled by the methods being used right now are still GROSSLY inaccurate regardless of how difficult or time consuming getting more accurate numbers would be. They need a new and more accurate method. I don't expect perfection, but when it's CLEARLY deceptive...that's where I draw the line and don't accept it. As far as the election and political polls....that's an entire different story all together. I believe many of these "poll numbers" are made-up propaganda put out TO sway the public to vote a certain way or influence candidates to support certain beliefs and avoid others. For example..... 90% of the population could support Universal Healthcare; but during a Presidential Debate Fox News can PUT OUT a bogus "poll" claiming 77% of Americans are against it and this will do a couple things: 1. If the candidates are dumb enough to believe this poll and not question it, they will NOT support Univeral Healthcare with the fear of not getting votes. 2. It will make most of those watching who DO support Universal Healthcare less enthused about their support feeling that they are in the minority when they actually are in the majority. What's really sad is that few people will question this bogus poll or where it came from. This is why I keep asking you and ProfD when was the last time YALL were contacted by a "poll" for something. If every other day or every week a new "poll" comes out for one thing or another whether it's political, social, economic, what-have-you....it seems to me that ALL of us would be getting contacted atleast once a month. Unless there is a group of 200 people sitting on a mountain somewhere who's ONLY job is to respond to polls and represent the American people and instead of contacting the general public....every poll agency simply contacts this secretive 200...lol.
frankster Posted April 23 Report Posted April 23 Neil deGrasse Tyson On The Flaws Of Eyewitness Testimony
Delano Posted April 23 Report Posted April 23 I have found statistics and numbers to be more informative than personal observations. If approached with minimal bias numerical analysis is illuminating. 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Nothing stops us from doing our own research and data collection. Statistics used to be my hobby. And it not easy to do your own research, and data collection is even harder. There are certain rules or parameters that have to be met or followed when gathering data. If certain criteria is met you have a biased sample that doesn't represent the population being analysed. The cool thing about statics is even if you don't have a normal sample set you can still perform analysis of the data. Averages Medians and Modes can be quite infomative. In addition looking at data graphically can show you some trends. However they may only apply to you have collected, if it is not a representative sample. I am sure you have heard of the Gallup polls. 1
Troy Posted April 23 Report Posted April 23 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Time and cost are irrelevant to the truth. Either it IS or it ISN'T....regardless as to how much it costs or how long it takes to find out. Using your reasoning, there is no truth. Do you believe the census figures to be 100% accurate. We all know we can’t possibly be 100% accurate does that make the figures a lie, not the truth? 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If your only "sample" were the braised string beans....that wouldn't be a good representation of the entire meal. That’s right and the type of samples one collects is important. It would be like trying to call a presidential election by only pulling people in New York City. You need a sufficiently diverse sample set, whether it’s your fictional meal or the voting population. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: This is why I keep asking you and ProfD when was the last time YALL were contacted by a "poll" for something. I answered that question I’m contacted all the time for polls. If you’re not being asked your opinion about something, there might be a reason for it 1 hour ago, Delano said: I am sure you have heard of the Gallup polls. I’m sure he has heard of it, but as he has said, unless the poll includes everyone, the data is a lie, and he is more inclined to trust his own intuition and observations. Did I describe your position accurately @Pioneer1?
Croocked T Posted April 23 Report Posted April 23 stats can be twisted to say whatever someone wants, but your own eyes don’t lie. Still, sometimes numbers help you see the bigger picture. For me, I trust what I experience, and if the data lines up, even better. 1
Pioneer1 Posted April 23 Author Report Posted April 23 Delano I have found statistics and numbers to be more informative than personal observations. If approached with minimal bias numerical analysis is illuminating. You ASSUME it's "informative" because you trust what you're being given. It could be that most of the stats you've actually received...when placed under close examination...were actually flawed and inaccurate. There are certain rules or parameters that have to be met or followed when gathering data. If certain criteria is met you have a biased sample that doesn't represent the population being analysed. Exactly. That's the point I was making earlier with the "sample" of the 7 course meal. The cool thing about statics is even if you don't have a normal sample set you can still perform analysis of the data. Averages Medians and Modes can be quite infomative. "Quite informative" and "exact" are not synonymous terms. In addition looking at data graphically can show you some trends. However they may only apply to you have collected, if it is not a representative sample. It depends on WHO'S collecting and presenting the data and for what purpose. Troy Using your reasoning, there is no truth. Do you believe the census figures to be 100% accurate. No. But again, I think they are CLOSER to accurate than the unemployment figures. We all know we can’t possibly be 100% accurate does that make the figures a lie, not the truth? I wouldn't call EVERY case of inaccuracy a "lie" implying deliberate deception; but if they aren't accurate....they certainly aren't the truth UNLESS the words "close to" or "about" or "approximately" are included in those figures, lol. That’s right and the type of samples one collects is important. It would be like trying to call a presidential election by only pulling people in New York City. You need a sufficiently diverse sample set, whether it’s your fictional meal or the voting population. And how do we know we're getting that with most statistics? If you’re not being asked your opinion about something, there might be a reason for it Yea.... When you found out they were planning to contact me, YOU probably told them not to waste their time, lol. unless the poll includes everyone, the data is a lie, and he is more inclined to trust his own intuition and observations. Did I describe your position accurately No. As I said before, I don't expect EVERYONE to be contacted when it comes to most polls. However I do expect a wide variety that represents ALL of America to be and I also pay attention to WHO is doing the polling. If it's being done by those with a history of bias and political deception like Fox News, then those figures should be dismissed anyway. However in theory, if they claim "such and such percent of Americans are this or that" then that poll actually SHOULD include ALL Americans. I know this is very very improbable which is why I said "in theory"....but it WOULD be closer to the actual truth.
ProfD Posted April 24 Report Posted April 24 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: However in theory, if they claim "such and such percent of Americans are this or that" then that poll actually SHOULD include ALL Americans. I know this is very very improbable which is why I said "in theory"....but it WOULD be closer to the actual truth. That could be a slippery slope considering America is North, Central and South. Even if the unemployment sample set only consists of USA citizens, many groups of people don't need to be counted i.e. kids, retirees, rich folks, inmates, etc. Statisticians use several methods for data collection and analysis. There's really no reason for them manipulate or misrepresent unemployment data.
Troy Posted April 24 Report Posted April 24 On 4/23/2025 at 5:48 PM, Croocked T said: but your own eyes don’t lie. That is just factually inaccurate. But it’s hard to convince people who have this belief to believe otherwise. 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But again, I think they are CLOSER to accurate than the unemployment figures. Again, they are not counting unemployment in the way that you defined it so let’s leave that alone. 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: And how do we know we're getting that with most statistics? These types of biases are well understood. No reputable poller is going to sample only New York City residence and think that’s representative of the entire country. 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: However in theory, if they claim "such and such percent of Americans are this or that" then that poll actually SHOULD include ALL Americans. Again, this is factually not true. Indeed, there is no poll that even attempts to include all Americans. Hey @Pioneer1 imagine a poll in which they ask every other American (basically if the person was not polled themselves, the person right next to them was) ANY question do you think that would be an accurate representative of all Americans?
Delano Posted April 24 Report Posted April 24 9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You ASSUME it's "informative" because you trust what you're being given. It could be that most of the stats you've actually received...when placed under close examination...were actually flawed and inaccurate You are making assumptions about something that I know about and you do not. I find information in numbers. I was a statistics tutor in University in both the Mathematics and Business school. Plus I have been paid to do statistical work. 9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Quite informative" and "exact" are not synonymous terms. In statistics you are trying to convert data into information. Accuracy is more important than precision.p 9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It depends on WHO'S collecting and presenting the data and for what purpose. No that is not an issue. Since any proper analysis will state their methodology. Again it is useful to have some knowledge about the subject your discussing in order to have an informed position. There are things that can be done to squeeze the numbers, however that's where analysis comes in handy. I'll give you an example. I was doing an analysis for a PhD candidate. I not only could see trends in the data which were corroborated by my professor. I also suggested changing the scale so it could be more descriptive. I did another analysis for a consulting group. One of the participants write my clients college statistics book. One of the presenters hot ripped a new one by nthe statistician. However my analysis was fine and went o to be included in a study done for the National Endowment for the Arts. I have other examples but those should make point to a rational thinking individual. The last five years I have been using numbers to qualify moments in time. Which isn't something that is easily done either by analysis or observation. As far as I know I am the only Astrologers who has these techniques. In addition they are objectively effective. 1
Pioneer1 Posted April 24 Author Report Posted April 24 ProfD Even if the unemployment sample set only consists of USA citizens, many groups of people don't need to be counted i.e. kids, retirees, rich folks, inmates, etc. I agree that kids and retirees shouldn't be counted. I WOULD count rich people....who aren't business owners...and inmates who weren't working, though. Owning a business is "working" as far as I'm concerned. Statisticians use several methods for data collection and analysis. There's really no reason for them manipulate or misrepresent unemployment data. There's no reason to slap a sucker out of the mouth of a stranger or kick an old lady down a flight of stair either, but some people still do it...because they can. Just like some people misrepresent and manipulate data and figures for no other reason besides the fact that they can. Troy That is just factually inaccurate. But it’s hard to convince people who have this belief to believe otherwise. How often do the eyes of MOST normal people actually deceive them? Indeed, there is no poll that even attempts to include all Americans. Nor do I expect for there to be or ask for one. Delano You are making assumptions about something that I know about and you do not. I find information in numbers. I was a statistics tutor in University in both the Mathematics and Business school. Plus I have been paid to do statistical work. At the end of the day, those statistics and figures you put so much trust and confidence in were generated by PEOPLE. I didn't need to go to college or business school to realize that PEOPLE OFTEN LIE. Did you???? In statistics you are trying to convert data into information. Accuracy is more important than precision.p Ok. So what's the difference BETWEEN accuracy and precision? Again it is useful to have some knowledge about the subject your discussing in order to have an informed position. So if we're in a ship and there's a hole in it filling the vessel up with water....I shouldn't speak up about it because I'm not a nautical engineering expert?
Troy Posted April 26 Report Posted April 26 On 4/24/2025 at 7:54 PM, Pioneer1 said: How often do the eyes of MOST normal people actually deceive them? I shared things like this before. Do the top and bottom the gray surfaces appear to be the same color to you? On 4/24/2025 at 7:54 PM, Pioneer1 said: Indeed, there is no poll that even attempts to include all Americans The US census is an attempt to count everyone.
Delano Posted April 26 Report Posted April 26 On 4/25/2025 at 9:54 AM, Pioneer1 said: At the end of the day, those statistics and figures you put so much trust and confidence in were generated by PEOPLE. I didn't need to go to college or business school to realize that PEOPLE OFTEN LIE. Did you???? I trust numbers more than I trust people's observations, since I can interrogate the numbers and find the truth. Most studies are done by more than one group. People are often ignorant or resistant to facts. Surely you can relate to this statement, intimately. On 4/25/2025 at 9:54 AM, Pioneer1 said: So what's the difference BETWEEN accuracy and precision? Accuracy is about being correct. Precision is more about the level of detail. An example. Having a scale that is more than 95 percent accurate that only measure weight to the tenths of a pound. Is better than a scale that measure to the hundredth of a pound but is 90% accurate. The variation of the second scale(accuracy) nullifies it's precision. Since the actual values varies from the true value by 10%. Statistical studies will tell you the sample size, how the sample was collected, it's correlating of strength of the relationship between the variables. You can also see how much the sample is a representative sample by looking at non parametric tests. Which can be applied to any sample. So in this instance your observations about numbers don't have as much validity as my analysis of the same. Full disclosure I am not a statistician, however I have a faculty with numbers and analysing data. On 4/25/2025 at 9:54 AM, Pioneer1 said: So if we're in a ship and there's a hole in it filling the vessel up with water....I shouldn't speak up about it because I'm not a nautical engineering expert? To use your example . Not all holes will sink about. It depends on the size and where the hole is located and the type of boat. Which is something that requires observation and specialised knowledge. Which a mathematician, an engineer or some fluent with fluid mechanics would be more likely to correctly assess. It's important for me to understand the limits of what I know. You are not so constrained.
Delano Posted April 26 Report Posted April 26 More importantly if there is a hole in the boat would you know what to do, in order to not sink? This is where having some knowledge is helpful other than observation.
Pioneer1 Posted April 26 Author Report Posted April 26 Delano Not that I agree with it totally, but I must say your second from last post was pretty intellectual and insightful.....as they are from time to time, lol. Sometimes you sound well educated and thought provoking, and other times you sound like you're posting on here from a basement....lol....with the lights off. This is why some years ago I accused you of being atleast 2 people sharing the same account. I'll respond a little later.......
Pioneer1 Posted April 26 Author Report Posted April 26 Troy I shared things like this before. Do the top and bottom the gray surfaces appear to be the same color to you? The CENTERS of those surfaces are the same colors. However this is a relatively simple illusionary trick DESIGNED to play with sight. Most of the things you observe from day to day aren't as malicious...lol. If eye-witnessing thing were so terrible and unreliable then why do law enforcement often as for descriptions of suspects from witnesses to a crime? And why are the testimonies of witnesses even CONSIDERED in court? The US census is an attempt to count everyone. I said POLL. Is the Census a "poll"???? Delano I trust numbers more than I trust people's observations, since I can interrogate the numbers and find the truth. Most studies are done by more than one group. But the numbers COME from people's observations. ....unless they're making them up out of thin air, which I suspect IS happening from time to time. People are often ignorant or resistant to facts. Surely you can relate to this statement, intimately. Man...... Accuracy is about being correct. Precision is more about the level of detail. Ok, I can get with that. So in this instance your observations about numbers don't have as much validity as my analysis of the same. Full disclosure I am not a statistician, however I have a faculty with numbers and analysing data. This is why I said your post was thought provoking.... Initially I thought you had mistakenly used "faculty" when you actually meant "fascination" but then I decided to look up the actual definition of "faculty" instead of going by it's most common use, and when I saw it's FIRST definition I realized your choice of words wasn't a mistake. To use your example . Not all holes will sink about. It depends on the size and where the hole is located and the type of boat. Which is something that requires observation and specialised knowledge. Which a mathematician, an engineer or some fluent with fluid mechanics would be more likely to correctly assess. As analytical as that was, it still doesn't answer my question as to whether I should "speak up" or "speak on" it simply because of my limited knowledge. Perhaps my sounding the alarm would get the attention of those who DO know enough about ship damage to assess how great of a concern the hole poses. If I was more concerned and worried about looking silly because of what I "didn't know"....that lack of confidence could end up sinking the ship and killing everyone in it. It's important for me to understand the limits of what I know. You are not so constrained. Maybe you don't have the confidence that I have...lol. Sometimes it's not about being smart and knowledgeable as much as it's about having the courage to point things out and USE what little knowledge you DO posses to get shit done.
Troy Posted April 26 Report Posted April 26 6 hours ago, Delano said: People are often ignorant or resistant to facts. Surely you can relate to this statement, intimately. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Most of the things you observe from day to day aren't as malicious...lol. OH CONTRARE! Marketers use all sorts of tactics to trick, indeed hack, into our minds to manipulate us into engaging into specific behaviors and beliefs. This is old news. It is why I generally avoid social media. People swear they are immune to this, so are resistant to the truth (back to Del's point). The first time I saw the image I could not believe what I was told. I had to print the image cut out the squares only to see they were exactly the same color (I don't know what you mean by "center"). As humans we cannot avoid being tricked by the images or social media. the problem with social media is that the company's are not divulging how they screw with us. The good thing for them is that most people think they can't be manipulated. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I said POLL. Is the Census a "poll"???? What?! Man, if you don't know we can't have a conversation on this subject SMH LOL!
Pioneer1 Posted April 26 Author Report Posted April 26 Troy OH CONTRARE! Marketers use all sorts of tactics to trick, indeed hack, into our minds to manipulate us into engaging into specific behaviors and beliefs. This is old news. It is why I generally avoid social media. This is more along the lines of PSYCHOLOGY and psychological manipulation...not visible OBSERVATION. -2 different concepts. They often converge and intertwine as marketers will use imagery to deceive people, but they are still 2 separate concepts. The eyes were designed by nature for accurate sight. Not to deceive. (I don't know what you mean by "center"). The places that I marked with the red "x". As humans we cannot avoid being tricked by the images or social media. the problem with social media is that the company's are not divulging how they screw with us. The good thing for them is that most people think they can't be manipulated. You clearly don't think YOU can be manipulated by the so-called "statistics" you are constantly being given. What?! Man, if you don't know we can't have a conversation on this subject SMH LOL! I said there is NO POLL that attempts to include all Americans. Your response to that was claiming the U.S. Census tries to include everyone. So apparently YOU believe that the Census is some sort of "poll".
aka Contrarian Posted April 26 Report Posted April 26 I find it amusing to observe the exchanges here that pit subjective egotistical obstinacy against the knowledgeable critical thinking of those with a full command of logic. Ironically, it is my "personal observation" of their challenger's delusions of omniscience that puts me on the side of Troy, Delano, and ProfD. That, and the fact that I like these 3 cuz they're really cool guys. 1
Pioneer1 Posted April 26 Author Report Posted April 26 3 hours ago, aka Contrarian said: I find it amusing to observe the exchanges here that pit subjective egotistical obstinacy against the knowledgeable critical thinking of those with a full command of logic. Ironically, it is my "personal observation" of their challenger's delusions of omniscience that puts me on the side of Troy, Delano, and ProfD. That, and the fact that I like these 3 cuz they're really cool guys. Lol, you brought your ass up in here JUST to say that? A house full of grown men talking and you decided to come all the way up in it just to say, "I bet those guys got bigger dicks than you do! Ha ha heeee!!". ....then run out the door grinning??? Nothing else to add to the conversation?????
Troy Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: This is more along the lines of PSYCHOLOGY and psychological manipulation...not visible OBSERVATION. That is one of the disciplines that studies the human brain and how it can be tricked, we are tricked every single day. Sometimes it’s deliberate and malicious other times was just the way it is. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The eyes were designed by nature for accurate sight. Not to deceive. Accurate sight, that is purely a human construct. Different animals can see different wave lengths of light. The differences are just differences accurate is your construct. Going back to the image I shared you look directly at it and see two different colors, even by your own definition of accurate you perceive colors differently uncertain conditions — when you think that you don’t. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You clearly don't think YOU can be manipulated by the so-called "statistics" you are constantly being given. You’re conflating things and muddling the argument. Of course statistical data can be misinterpreted or patterns can be over looked or seen when none exist, but we’re not talking about that…. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Census is some sort of "poll". Obviously. Haven’t you ever filled out the census? If so, you know they ask a variety of questions. 3 hours ago, aka Contrarian said: I like these 3 cuz they're really cool guys . well, as high praise coming from you. 1
aka Contrarian Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 We go waaay back, Troy. You've always been a gentleman and a scholar; a really cool guy. 1
Delano Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: instead of going by it's most common use, and when I saw it's FIRST definition I realized your choice of words wasn't a mistake. There are two subtle ponts in your response. I am using uncommon knowledge which you may not be Cognizant. You are assuming I am wrong when you haven't understood what I said. Which circles back to my other point. 18 hours ago, Delano said: It's important for me to understand the limits of what I know. You are not so constrained It only took you a day to realise the statement I made was correct. That's a good turn around time 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: the numbers COME from people's observations. ....unless they're making them up out of thin air, which I suspect IS happening from time to time This is almost impossible to do and not get caught. 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Maybe you don't have the confidence that I have...lol No I just have more of a dislike of ignorance. 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Sometimes it's not about being smart Yes for some people that is the case. A lot of instances before I post something il do a couple of searches to understand an issue from more than one perspective. So I have learnt a bit from some of the questions posted in the forum. 1
Delano Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The eyes were designed by nature for accurate sight. Not to deceive This isn't quite right. Vision isn't like a camera. Visual perception can be effected by suggestion. Also we have a blind spot in our eyes where the light enters. However you brain fills in the missing scenery. 2
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 Troy That is one of the disciplines that studies the human brain and how it can be tricked, we are tricked every single day. Sometimes it’s deliberate and malicious other times was just the way it is. Ok ...and you don't believe this same concept can be applied to statistics, polls, and figures presented to the public? The same skepticism you're applying to eyewitness testimony and personal observation can be applied to how data is gathered, organized, and presented as well as WHO is gathering, organizing, and presenting it. Accurate sight, that is purely a human construct. Different animals can see different wave lengths of light. The differences are just differences accurate is your construct. Are you suggesting that accurate sight among humans doesn't actually exist? What's your point by calling the notion of it a "human construct"? Going back to the image I shared you look directly at it and see two different colors, even by your own definition of accurate you perceive colors differently uncertain conditions — when you think that you don’t. Actually you don't perceive two different COLORS but two different SHADES of the same color. So the deception isn't as great as you're making it out to be. It's not like the illusion was designed to force people to see blue as "pink". Unless a person is visually impaired or intoxicated, visual deception has limits to it. You’re conflating things and muddling the argument. Of course statistical data can be misinterpreted or patterns can be over looked or seen when none exist, but we’re not talking about that…. I'm not "muddling" the argument, the thread has always been about how statistics and other figures can and often ARE used to deceive and manipulate people as well as are often fabricated and manipulated themselves. You'd rather overlook this common sense fact to focus on the frailties of human observation. This is what you actually learn in most universities. How to trust "the system" over your own senses. Obviously. Haven’t you ever filled out the census? If so, you know they ask a variety of questions. Lol...man, the Census is NOT a poll! A poll is a survey of opinions. The Census is NOT a survey of opinions but an official government collection of data. Delano I am using uncommon knowledge which you may not be Cognizant. Ok...why? If it's uncommon and you figure I "may not" be cognizant of it then why would you think it would be appropriate for a common conversation? You are assuming I am wrong when you haven't understood what I said. Which circles back to my other point. I admit I did (silently) question your choice of words, but I didn't attempt to correct you either. I simply did my research and realized it wasn't a mistake. Remember, I'M the one who brought this to YOUR attention. It's not like I attacked you over that word assuming you made a mistake only for YOU to have to explain to me the other meaning of it...lol. It only took you a day to realise the statement I made was correct. That's a good turn around time Yeah, yeah, yeah......lol. This is almost impossible to do and not get caught. That depends on 2 factors: 1. Assuming there are people actually TRYING to catch whoever is presenting the false information. If Fox News puts out a fake poll or statistic, certainly nobody inside the organization is going to try to dispute it. Small chance other conservative media will either. How much time and effort will OTHER people and organizations spend trying to verify the numbers and figures being put out? 2. How long would it actually TAKE to cross reference and investigate the veracity of the figures being presented and declare them fraudulent? It may be years...possibly DECADES...after the fact. Long after the damage has been done. No I just have more of a dislike of ignorance. Things must really be sad for you because you are IGNORANT of way more than you actually know...lol. That's humanity in general. This isn't quite right. Vision isn't like a camera. Visual perception can be effected by suggestion. Suggestion is often more of a matter of FOCUS than general vision itself. Unless a person is under hypnosis, suggestion generally doesn't add or remove objects from a person's VISION. It merely FOCUSES them on certain objects already in view. You can SEE way more than what you're actually LOOKING at. Cynique We go waaay back, Troy. You've always been a gentleman and a scholar; a really cool guy. Yeah??? You weren't talking like that a few years ago when you LEFT this site to go hang out at facebook....or whatever social media you said you were leaving us for, lol. You weren't slapping him on the shoulder talking about some damn: "gee you're a swell guy" ....back then. Were you??? Like I said.... You ain't foolin' NOBODY -but yourself. And NOT doing a very good job at that...lol.
Delano Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Elevation 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Ok...why? If it's uncommon and you figure I "may not" be cognizant of it then why would you think it would be appropriate for a common conversation? 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: That depends on 2 factors You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to statistics. So I can't entertain this monologue.
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 Delano I didn't see any "invitation" with your name on it in the title or opening post anyway....lol You found your way in, so if you like you can find your way out.
Delano Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Things must really be sad for you because you are IGNORANT of way more than you actually know...lol. That's humanity in general There are entire subjects that I know nothing about, it's not about being sad . It's about time , focus and interest. I recently realised something about myself. I have to read authors who have a facility with language and/or have an interesting story. I also read very few esoteric books unless the author has more broad or in depth Knowledge than myself. Since I have been interested in the esoteric since about 12. And actively for the last 27 years so that's is understandable. Some things are pointless. Or I don't care about having to prove a point. Sometimes I'll drop out of an argument because it has become tiresome or too familiar.
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 5 minutes ago, Delano said: Some things are pointless. Like expecting ME to have the same faith in stats and figures that YOU do. That would indeed be a waste of time because I wasn't trained to ignore common sense.
Troy Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Are you suggesting that accurate sight among humans doesn't actually exist? Yes, “accurate” is how we define it. The works we observe is simply hire we are capable of perceiving it. 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: always been about how statistics and other figures can and often ARE used to deceive and manipulate people as well as are often fabricated and manipulated themselves. Oh, I thought it was about personal observations versus statistics. You’re arguing that personal observations, anecdotes, are better than the days collected from polls and the like. What did I miss? 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Lol...man, the Census is NOT a poll! A poll is a survey of opinions. The Census is NOT a survey of opinions but an official government collection of data. Polls are not just for collecting opinions. Polls collect factual information like age income, etc. But I was incorrect too. A poll is an estimate by sampling a subset of people. Our census is an attempt to collect data from everyone. This does not change my point, however polls and the census both are more valuable than anyone’s personal observations — indeed that is why they are conducted. 11 hours ago, Delano said: So I have learnt a bit from some of the questions posted in the forum. I have too
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 Troy Yes, “accurate” is how we define it. The works we observe is simply hire we are capable of perceiving it. Ask any Optometrist...there is definitely a standard for what is considered ACCURATE human eye sight. And even as lay people we've all heard of 20/20 vision. You're playing with words and definitions. But if "accurate" is simply how we define it...as you say...then it's still a real thing and shouldn't be dismissed. Oh, I thought it was about personal observations versus statistics. You’re arguing that personal observations, anecdotes, are better than the days collected from polls and the like. What did I miss? You missed your calling as a lawyer....lol....as much as you like to play with words. It's about BOTH. But when I bring up the fact that stats and figures can be misrepresented and manipulated, you accused me of "muddling" the argument as if that particular point WASN'T part of the discussion all along. Polls are not just for collecting opinions. Polls collect factual information like age income, etc. But I was incorrect too. Thanks for your acknowledgement....lol. This does not change my point, however polls and the census both are more valuable than anyone’s personal observations — indeed that is why they are conducted. Valuable if they are PROPERLY conducted. If they are not or are fabricated....they are far more damaging.
aka Contrarian Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 23 hours ago, aka Contrarian said: We go waaay back, Troy. You've always been a gentleman and a scholar; a really cool guy. Every word of the above quote is TRUE. Troy and I have remained friends for 20+ years, always kept in touch by email, bringing each other up to date, sending holiday greetings. At one time, we were even going to collaborate on a book about this site. When he came to Chicago for some kind of conference, we had a chance to meet and even took a picture together. We have disagreed about things on this discussion board but have never fallen out, never had cross words because he is "a cool guy. A gentleman and a scholar" as opposed to being a petty envious slime ball like pioneer who is desperate to maintain his fantasy about being something other than a dufus who I detest more with each passing day. Everything pioneer just posted here in his attempt to besmirch the friendship between Troy and me is, as usual, a made up LIE, not based on fact but malicious speculation being spread by a disgruntled wanna-be cool guy. I was stunned by the distorted version of why I simply stopped posting here as I do from time to time - because I simply become burnt out. The obnoxious gnat who is really trying to fool everybody is pioneer who cannot process the idea that there's NOTHING about him that I like. He wants everybody to think that when it comes to all the really cool guys who post here, my snubbing him was a mistake. It wasn't. OK back to the debate over pioneer's claims of perfect vision which, as everyone soon duscovers, only proves that he's nothing but a myopic strawman full of specious arguments reeking with false equivalences and non sequiturs. I could discern this even before I had my cataract surgery. 1
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 Cynique Oh here we go.......lol. I never questioned the sincerity of the friendship between you and Troy, Delano, or anybody else on this site. That doesn't mean that every word of flattery that comes out of your mouth is sincere. It would seem to ME that if you GENUINELY thought that these gentlemen were "cool guys"...you would have said it much sooner and in an appropriate setting. ...like it's own thread, lol. I can disagree and even argue with Troy and ProfD all day long. Infact, personally it's FUN to do so. I actually agree with them MORE than I disagree but it makes for more conversation to go over points of DISAGREEMENT with them...but never once have I felt the need to tell them how much I like them or even how cool they are. Perhaps it's a "masculine" thing. But what's UNDERSTOOD doesn't need to be SAID Real talk So the fact that you go out of your way to compliment other men INFRONT of me says less about how sincere you actually ARE with those compliments but more about how much I stay on your mind. I'll tell ya Cynique.....you're starting to concern me....lol. For somebody who doesn't have "a thing" for me....THOUGHTS of me sure do live in your mind rent free...lol. I was stunned by the distorted version of why I simply stopped posting here as I do from time to time - because I simply become burnt out. Stunned???? Lol...what can a 90-something year old STILL be "stunned" at seeing??? Anyway..... Cynique cut the shit, you KNOW you got mad over something and left. I forgot exactly what it was but it was a while back before the Pandemic. You made some sort of snide remark having to do with some social media platform that you were posting on at the time being better or having more friends on it or something; but you DID say something a little greasy before you left. I remember that....so don't play like you just got tired and took a break. But enough of that..... I'm not going over that again because all you'll do is start doing what you usually do....which is what you're getting close to doing right now...and we don't wanna see that. Either contribute to THIS conversation or shut the door behind you please. You can join Delano and yall can go over Horoscopes together or something....lol.
aka Contrarian Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 And the fabricated figments of pioneer's ego saturated imagination keep coming as he continues to try and control the narrative, putting his spin on everything. blah, blah, blah. Talk to the hand.🫷
Mel Hopkins Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 On 4/20/2025 at 9:28 AM, Pioneer1 said: Especially knowing how the racists love to manipulate figures, stats, numbers, and skew information to fit their agendas. So, you have a problem with the means (data collection and distribution) because you believe they negatively affect the end (statistics). I don't think anyone can argue with you on that reasoning. I can only disagree that you can trust your eyes. You can't because people can cloak their physical abilities, mental abilities, and finances. Therefore, you can't accurately determine the unemployment rate of those people by observation. Also, using your criteria, you cannot physically observe who is "able-bodied" or if those people are employable. You can only trust your observation if you first check what the Labor Department is measuring, who they are collecting this information from, and how they distribute it to determine the results. However, observing a sample population, such as who is working and who is being counted in your neighborhood, will never get you to a correct answer. And while it may bring you comfort, how does it bring a solution? 1
Troy Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Ask any Optometrist...there is definitely a standard for what is considered ACCURATE human eye sight. And even as lay people we've all heard of 20/20 vision. What about people who have 20/10 vision, who can see thing people with 20/20 can't. How about eagles who can see thing now human can see? 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Thanks for your acknowledgement....lol. No problem I can admit when I'm wrong -- You can't learn otherwise. 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: If they are not or are fabricated....they are far more damaging. AGAIN we are not talking about liars or people trying to deceive -- set that aside. Why can't you just admit that your personal observation are worthless when compared to data collected in a poll and certainly a census? This should be obvious... 1
Delano Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That would indeed be a waste of time because I wasn't trained to ignore common sense Nor were you trained in statistics 33 minutes ago, Troy said: Why can't you just admit that your personal observation are worthless when compared to data collected in a poll and certainly a census? This should be obvious It's obvious to everyone else. Am opinion is never wrong but it can be either uninformed or misinformed. Pioneer has hit the Daily Double. 1 1
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 Mel So, you have a problem with the means (data collection and distribution) because you believe they negatively affect the end (statistics). Yes Did you read what I said about the methods they used to gather "unemployment" stats? How could anyone reasonably accept those figures as accurate given the methods used to collect them? I can only disagree that you can trust your eyes. You can't because people can cloak their physical abilities, mental abilities, and finances. Therefore, you can't accurately determine the unemployment rate of those people by observation. Also, using your criteria, you cannot physically observe who is "able-bodied" or if those people are employable. While you're right, from a PERSONAL point of view...I can say that I'm pretty honest with myself. So why should I trust information coming from a stranger more than what I've personally witnessed? I can drive down the street and SEE homeless people on the sidewalk, but I wouldn't even TRY to guess the homeless rate in the state of Michigan much less the entire nation. You can only trust your observation if you first check what the Labor Department is measuring, who they are collecting this information from, and how they distribute it to determine the results. However, observing a sample population, such as who is working and who is being counted in your neighborhood, will never get you to a correct answer. And while it may bring you comfort, how does it bring a solution? I wouldn't compare my personal observations to an agency CHARGED with collecting data to determine these things because my personal observations are obviously too limited. Troy What about people who have 20/10 vision, who can see thing people with 20/20 can't. How about eagles who can see thing now human can see? What about them? They are accurate too with even MORE precision (thanks for something Delano...lol) Or is it your position that only concepts like NUMBERS can be accurate but when it comes to hearing and sight....it's a matter of detail and not accuracy? AGAIN we are not talking about liars or people trying to deceive -- set that aside. Yes we ARE. That was my point earlier. That's PART of the reason I DON'T trust many of the stats being put out. Delano -For a person who dropped out of the conversation...you're sure leaving a heck of an echo...lol Nor were you trained in statistics Nor do I need to be to make the point I'm making. They are subject to human error and shouldn't be blindly trusted. It's obvious to everyone else. Am opinion is never wrong but it can be either uninformed or misinformed. Pioneer has hit the Daily Double. Hee hee haa haa But uhh.....don't quit your day jobs as a gigolo & part-time horoscope reader in the down under, lol.
aka Contrarian Posted April 27 Report Posted April 27 I can't resist pointing out that pioneer's faulty visual perception is also why he can't relinquish the idea that I secretly find him - "special". Fact is, I would zero in on him because I have a childish habit of wanting to get the last word. I couldn't stand letting him get away with smugly perpetuating the false idea that I liked him better than the others guys here. Eventually I came to really dislike him for arrogantly encouraging this impression. I tell you he's a case history narcissist. And I wouldn't be surprised if his wet nurse Mzuri isn't feeding him these fabrications about why I went on hiatus. Maybe Troy has some recollections.
Pioneer1 Posted April 27 Author Report Posted April 27 4 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said: And I wouldn't be surprised if his wet nurse Mzuri isn't feeding him If you think this is some sort of "insult".....lol....you apparently don't know men very well. Anyway..... How accurate are political polls really? | The Week Quote As recent years have proved, polling is often, sometimes heavily, incorrect. Case in point: Polling generated by HuffPost on Election Day 2016 concluded that Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of beating Trump. However, while the polls that year were dramatically wrong, most polling throughout the 2020 election cycle correctly predicted that Joe Biden would defeat Trump. So given that polling accuracy has been on both sides of the coin, how much trust should the public place in polls?
umbrarchist Posted May 2 Report Posted May 2 Just because something is true does not mean that you can get enough information to know that it is true. Just because something is false does not mean that you can get enough information to know that it is false. It is like Donald Rumsfeld said: The unknown unknown is a muthafuka. I think of most information in terms of importance and probability not true and false. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I have seen that most often attributed to Mark Twain but some sources say that is a lie. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now