4 ms·

Interviewer: "Will Republicans say the sky is blue?" Democrat: "No." Republican: "Of course it's blue. It's hot pink, which is a shade of blue." Democrat: ".

by asark 7y ago

Interviewer: "Will Republicans say the sky is blue?" Democrat: "No." Republican: "Of course it's blue. It's hot pink, which is a shade of blue." Democrat: "... wait, what? You think... huh?" Interviewer: "Looks like the Democrat was wrong!" Which is true... ish. Truthy.

wool_gather 7y ago
Not sure where the negative reaction is coming from for this comment. It's a perfect analogy. You can swap Republican and Democrat in every place if you'd like; the problem is the same. It's presented as if we have a predicate like "PARTISAN believes X" and another predicate like "OTHER_PARTISAN estimates that for all PARTISAN P, (P believes X)". But it's not as clean as this. Because of the messiness of natural language -- which goes double for political language -- there's no guaranteed equality between the two Xs.
- asark 7y ago
  Yeah, the main question under discussion here when I made the post seemed to be the racism one, which appears to have played out the way I depicted. The general problem is that it's really, really hard to design complex social science surveys that even maybe measure what you're tying to measure. This one's complex, and I'm pretty sure doesn't measure what they were trying to measure. A big chunk of the two major parties don't even agree on the terms these questions are about, meaning they may well be aware of why their counterparts would answer "yes" where they said they'd say "no", but consider their "yes" to be fundamentally about something else entirely. I wish they'd included "do democrats support murder" and "do republicans support murder". That'd have been fun. Some would certainly have said yes on either side (abortion, the death penalty) and they'd be right from their point of view, even though "do you support murder?" would have been near-zero on both sides.

4 ms·

Interviewer: "Will Republicans say the sky is blue?" Democrat: "No." Republican: "Of course it's blue. It's hot pink, which is a shade of blue." Democrat: ".

by asark 7y ago

wool_gather 7y ago
Not sure where the negative reaction is coming from for this comment. It's a perfect analogy. You can swap Republican and Democrat in every place if you'd like; the problem is the same. It's presented as if we have a predicate like "PARTISAN believes X" and another predicate like "OTHER_PARTISAN estimates that for all PARTISAN P, (P believes X)". But it's not as clean as this. Because of the messiness of natural language -- which goes double for political language -- there's no guaranteed equality between the two Xs.
- asark 7y ago
  Yeah, the main question under discussion here when I made the post seemed to be the racism one, which appears to have played out the way I depicted. The general problem is that it's really, really hard to design complex social science surveys that even maybe measure what you're tying to measure. This one's complex, and I'm pretty sure doesn't measure what they were trying to measure. A big chunk of the two major parties don't even agree on the terms these questions are about, meaning they may well be aware of why their counterparts would answer "yes" where they said they'd say "no", but consider their "yes" to be fundamentally about something else entirely. I wish they'd included "do democrats support murder" and "do republicans support murder". That'd have been fun. Some would certainly have said yes on either side (abortion, the death penalty) and they'd be right from their point of view, even though "do you support murder?" would have been near-zero on both sides.