Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

the world’s slackening grip on reality

Journal by c0lo

(in the loving memory of Runaway1956, who succumbed after a long battle to gatewaypundits. May his brain rest in peace, squeaky clean and smoothed over)

because "Doing your own research" is far easier nowadays than building the habit of thinking critically.
Add COVID-anxiety, a chaotic narcissistic Orange clown and compound with the lack of survival problems to solve for the everyday life in a westernized society and (where appropriate) a good dose of American exceptionalism.

the world’s slackening grip on reality | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 153 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @05:52PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2020, @05:52PM (#1076217)

    Conflict of interest plus extraordinary claims (and bias too - treating a variety of beliefs as being Q Anon originated). Smart money would be on a problem with the poll.

    Six bitcoins [xe.com] says the methodology in the paper was the methodology used to collect the data reported.

    Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is, or are you just blathering as usual?

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 12 2020, @12:28AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 12 2020, @12:28AM (#1076385) Journal
    Not touching that bet. You're betting currently around $95k which is way too rich for the matter at hand. That's enough to bribe any normal authority, the organization in question, and their "online panel provider" to falsify evidence.

    Second, the paper is strictly an opinion piece with no polling data provided for the alleged study (no citation of any sort, not even the name of the above provider of the poll). It's already in violation of the conditions they outline because there's no way in that paper to verify that the polls (there are at least two described in the paper) are as claimed or even exist in the first place. I think some of the details claimed indicate that there's some sort of real world poll somewhere, but it's interesting how little data there actually is about the poll or who did it.

    There are indications of deep problems with the quality of the data. For example (page 27):

    However, measuring support for QAnon is more complex than one might think. Whilst 8% of our sample claimed to support QAnon, a number of these “supporters” also claimed in a previous question that they had not actually heard of QAnon, results that echo a recent survey in the US.1 Taking those who claimed to have both heard of QAnon and to support it as a more accurate figure, we get the still considerable figure of 5.7% (3.2% strong support, and 2.5% soft support), although it is unclear what importance these respondents place on that support.

    In other words, 30% of the people who allegedly support QAnon have never even heard of the group.

    Also from the earlier quoted boilerplate of the poll, we have this key phrase: "using an online panel of respondents". Since QAnon is an online phenomenon, you are polling by one of the key characteristics that will bias the study - online people are vastly more likely to have heard of the theory than people who aren't online. They aren't polling the "British mainstream", they're polling some people who have access to that online panel and then extending their results to a hypothetical British mainstream, but extending across with a key bias of the data.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2020, @05:05AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2020, @05:05AM (#1076455)

      Not touching that bet. You're betting currently around $95k which is way too rich for the matter at hand. That's enough to bribe any normal authority, the organization in question, and their "online panel provider" to falsify evidence.

      So you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. That's quite telling.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 12 2020, @01:14PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 12 2020, @01:14PM (#1076556) Journal
        Well, you aren't either. AC posting only.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 12 2020, @02:04PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 12 2020, @02:04PM (#1076573) Journal
        Let me point out the problems with the bet as you proposed it. First, you're posting as AC. I have no idea who you are, much less that you can back your side of the bet or for that matter aren't merely looking for an angle to steal from me. Second, no mechanism for the bet, either the placing of bets or the subsequent judgment of the bet.

        Third, too much money. I have experience with bets that can be thrown arbitrarily because there's enough money to make it worthwhile. $95k would be way more than needed to bribe various parties (particularly the judge) to throw the bet one way or another.