3 ms·

>But do you suspect the methodology, the results, or the conclusion were "faked" or inaccurate? Selective definitions were used. They weren't hidden for anyon

>But do you suspect the methodology, the results, or the conclusion were "faked" or inaccurate? Selective definitions were used. They weren't hidden for anyone willing to look into the details, but if this was a political move (I'm not saying it was, but if it was) then the people who did it would know full well that the headline would have far more penetration than any statistical critique with how terms were defined. Another poster here used the term 'slight of hand'. One could describe it, if it was a political move, as a form of deceit without being an outright lie.

close04 7y ago
Forming an opinion based solely on the title or the (perceived) author's bias without ever reading the content is a problem no matter where you stand. Which is why I asked OP to help me understand their reasoning behind discrediting the author, suggesting a conclusion but not even attempting to discuss the content. How is this different from anybody responding to a comment solely by attacking the person who wrote it and their political affiliations rather than attempt to discuss the actual content? Would you question a reply like "Please keep in mind that this opinion came from [a member of party X] / [a supporter of cause Y] so I don't think their opinion is neutral [period]" to one of your comments or remarks? And that's not even going into the whole "what's a 100% neutral opinion". And so many downvotes for a question that was not leading in any way (offered both alternatives as equally probable) also suggests a bias to consider only the arguments that support your own views and react "aggressively" to anything that seems to clash with their beliefs.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Forming an opinion based solely on the title or the (perceived) author's bias without ever reading the content is a problem no matter where you stand. First impressions matter. A job posting for an elite JavaScript ninja with 15 years of ES6 experience is going to have the creator of the job post judged very harshly, even if no other information is viewed. Sometimes that will be wrong, but it will be right often enough to be reasonable. As for this particular case, an analysis of how they calculated the number has already been done by other who have posted under this same article. If you feel there is a flaw in their logic, you can reply to them directly. >How is this different from anybody responding to a comment solely by attacking the person who wrote it and their political affiliations rather than attempt to discuss the actual content? Because it is based on both the author and the content, and the nature of the disagreement is that the content is wrong for reasons that are only incidentally related to the author. The argument isn't 'study is bad because author is bad. The argument is 'the combination of the author's own stated goals and the creative statistical freedom taken when calculating the figure leads me to believe there is significant bias in and behind this'. There is also a known issue of political groups injecting favorable bias in the work they do. >Would you question a reply like "Please keep in mind that this opinion came from [a member of party X] / [a supporter of cause Y] so I don't think their opinion is neutral [period]" to one of your comments or remarks? Well, I don't think any opinion is neutral (at least on matters of politics) to begin with and would overall trust someone who recognizes their biases more than someone who doesn't, even if that is stereotypical of me.
TearsInTheRain 7y ago
They manipulated the data to generate the appropriate headline knowing 99% of people that come across their article wont look deeper

close04 7y ago

Forming an opinion based solely on the title or the (perceived) author's bias without ever reading the content is a problem no matter where you stand. Which is why I asked OP to help me understand their reasoning behind discrediting the author, suggesting a conclusion but not even attempting to discuss the content. How is this different from anybody responding to a comment solely by attacking the person who wrote it and their political affiliations rather than attempt to discuss the actual content? Would you question a reply like "Please keep in mind that this opinion came from [a member of party X] / [a supporter of cause Y] so I don't think their opinion is neutral [period]" to one of your comments or remarks? And that's not even going into the whole "what's a 100% neutral opinion". And so many downvotes for a question that was not leading in any way (offered both alternatives as equally probable) also suggests a bias to consider only the arguments that support your own views and react "aggressively" to anything that seems to clash with their beliefs.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>Forming an opinion based solely on the title or the (perceived) author's bias without ever reading the content is a problem no matter where you stand. First impressions matter. A job posting for an elite JavaScript ninja with 15 years of ES6 experience is going to have the creator of the job post judged very harshly, even if no other information is viewed. Sometimes that will be wrong, but it will be right often enough to be reasonable. As for this particular case, an analysis of how they calculated the number has already been done by other who have posted under this same article. If you feel there is a flaw in their logic, you can reply to them directly. >How is this different from anybody responding to a comment solely by attacking the person who wrote it and their political affiliations rather than attempt to discuss the actual content? Because it is based on both the author and the content, and the nature of the disagreement is that the content is wrong for reasons that are only incidentally related to the author. The argument isn't 'study is bad because author is bad. The argument is 'the combination of the author's own stated goals and the creative statistical freedom taken when calculating the figure leads me to believe there is significant bias in and behind this'. There is also a known issue of political groups injecting favorable bias in the work they do. >Would you question a reply like "Please keep in mind that this opinion came from [a member of party X] / [a supporter of cause Y] so I don't think their opinion is neutral [period]" to one of your comments or remarks? Well, I don't think any opinion is neutral (at least on matters of politics) to begin with and would overall trust someone who recognizes their biases more than someone who doesn't, even if that is stereotypical of me.

TearsInTheRain 7y ago

They manipulated the data to generate the appropriate headline knowing 99% of people that come across their article wont look deeper