5 ms·

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out. I have nothing against these topics, but

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out. I have nothing against these topics, but when you dominate your list with one theme and don't address that theme in the lede, I reflexively assume the author is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes. There is almost certainly some sampling bias going on, at least.

lithos 10y ago
Isn't that the assumption of any medium article? You're getting an editorial piece, based on the author's views (editorial doesn't necessarily mean all opinion and low fact density).
ciconia 10y ago
Did you read it from start to end? By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health, political and economic progress, climat change response, less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture, endangered animals, charity. The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it. You cannot really separate economic progress, political stability and public health from the state of the environment.
- CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
  > Did you read it from start to end? Yes, I did. > The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it. Okay, you just conceded a point that negates any reasonable premise for your question that I can imagine at this time. If everything is sort of tied in with environmental concerns, then why did you think I didn't read the article from start to end? If you didn't think that, then why did you feel the need to ask if I had? I may be missing something obvious. I'd appreciate if someone could fill me in on what I missed.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but I can only assume you're being downvoted because you ignored this: By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health, political and economic progress, climate change response, less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture, endangered animals, charity. It's pretty clear that this was the main point to counter your claim that the list was dominated by a single theme, yet you ignored it and focused on something else.
    - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
      Nature conservation, climate change response, sustainable agriculture, endangered animals. That's all under the same theme I was talking about in my comment. It's half of your list.
      - csallen 10y ago
        Not saying you're wrong, just saying you should have said that in your response to the parent, otherwise it comes off as you dodging his point.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  " and everything else sort of ties in with it. " No it doesn't. I can talk about problems and solutions on most of the list you cited without ever mentioning conservation. Conservation is a big talking point if the author is heavily biased for or against it with a personal mission to push it into people's minds. As we see in the article. I'd have probably led with global health or less violence followed by economy, political progress, agriculture, and/or charity. These are what people relate to easiest. Then, I hit them with thing that are more long-term or that they just might not care about. This setup is what I create when the audience of people in general is my priority rather than my personal, political mission.
sgustard 10y ago
How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? The entire premise of the article depends on your definition of the word "good". I agree this article is viewed through a liberal lens. A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences!
- CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
  > How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? If I were to write this article, I'd attempt to hit as many different interests as possible, including things I find silly or inconsequential (i.e. sports teams' accomplishments). > A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences! That's an interesting take on conservatism. Most of the self-proclaimed conservatives I know wouldn't agree with that, but maybe they're mislabeling themselves?
- protomyth 10y ago
  > A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences! and that's why liberals lose elections - one of these years we'll skip the caricatures
  - noobermin 10y ago
    You ignore the last two elections. We'd all do well to avoid succumbing to recent-ism.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Not really, I guess you mean 2012 and 2008, but looking at 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016; you see a pretty interesting trend in both national elections and state houses.
ak217 10y ago
Maybe the sampling bias is in our own little urban bubbles, where we become oblivious to the mass extinction being driven by people around us. The time to prioritize environmental issues is now. Our culture and infrastructure and code can preserve themselves pretty well, but much of the wildlife around us is gone, and most of it will be gone forever if we don't act.

lithos 10y ago

Isn't that the assumption of any medium article? You're getting an editorial piece, based on the author's views (editorial doesn't necessarily mean all opinion and low fact density).

ciconia 10y ago

Did you read it from start to end? By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health, political and economic progress, climat change response, less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture, endangered animals, charity. The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it. You cannot really separate economic progress, political stability and public health from the state of the environment.

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
> Did you read it from start to end? Yes, I did. > The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it. Okay, you just conceded a point that negates any reasonable premise for your question that I can imagine at this time. If everything is sort of tied in with environmental concerns, then why did you think I didn't read the article from start to end? If you didn't think that, then why did you feel the need to ask if I had? I may be missing something obvious. I'd appreciate if someone could fill me in on what I missed.
- csallen 10y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but I can only assume you're being downvoted because you ignored this: By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health, political and economic progress, climate change response, less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture, endangered animals, charity. It's pretty clear that this was the main point to counter your claim that the list was dominated by a single theme, yet you ignored it and focused on something else.
  - CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
    Nature conservation, climate change response, sustainable agriculture, endangered animals. That's all under the same theme I was talking about in my comment. It's half of your list.
    - csallen 10y ago
      Not saying you're wrong, just saying you should have said that in your response to the parent, otherwise it comes off as you dodging his point.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
" and everything else sort of ties in with it. " No it doesn't. I can talk about problems and solutions on most of the list you cited without ever mentioning conservation. Conservation is a big talking point if the author is heavily biased for or against it with a personal mission to push it into people's minds. As we see in the article. I'd have probably led with global health or less violence followed by economy, political progress, agriculture, and/or charity. These are what people relate to easiest. Then, I hit them with thing that are more long-term or that they just might not care about. This setup is what I create when the audience of people in general is my priority rather than my personal, political mission.

sgustard 10y ago

How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? The entire premise of the article depends on your definition of the word "good". I agree this article is viewed through a liberal lens. A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences!

CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
> How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? If I were to write this article, I'd attempt to hit as many different interests as possible, including things I find silly or inconsequential (i.e. sports teams' accomplishments). > A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences! That's an interesting take on conservatism. Most of the self-proclaimed conservatives I know wouldn't agree with that, but maybe they're mislabeling themselves?
protomyth 10y ago
> A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences! and that's why liberals lose elections - one of these years we'll skip the caricatures
- noobermin 10y ago
  You ignore the last two elections. We'd all do well to avoid succumbing to recent-ism.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Not really, I guess you mean 2012 and 2008, but looking at 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016; you see a pretty interesting trend in both national elections and state houses.

ak217 10y ago

Maybe the sampling bias is in our own little urban bubbles, where we become oblivious to the mass extinction being driven by people around us. The time to prioritize environmental issues is now. Our culture and infrastructure and code can preserve themselves pretty well, but much of the wildlife around us is gone, and most of it will be gone forever if we don't act.