4 ms·

My takeaway is that as a heuristic, I can dismiss claims of "x% of Y group believe Z" as meaningful when - x ~ 4% if the question offered an "unsure/ don't know

My takeaway is that as a heuristic, I can dismiss claims of "x% of Y group believe Z" as meaningful when - x ~ 4% if the question offered an "unsure/ don't know" option, or - x ~ 33% if the question did not offer an "unsure/don't know" option. Do think as a populace we'll ever get beyond the inherent subjectivity of poll results? A NYT article yesterday, "Young People More Likely to Believe Virus Misinformation, Study Says" [1], cited that 28% of 18-24 y.o.s believe that humans originally got coronavirus from eating bats. But I looked at the paper [2], and it turns out they were offered a "not sure" option. So am I justified now in thinking that there's something wrong with these Gen Z kids? I think most likely not... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/technology/young-people-more-likely-to-believe-virus-misinformation-study-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/technology/young-people-m... [2]: http://www.kateto.net/covid19/COVID19%20CONSORTIUM%20REPORT%2014%20MISINFO%20SEP%202020.pdf http://www.kateto.net/covid19/COVID19%20CONSORTIUM%20REPORT%...

benchaney 6y ago
Perhaps the takeaway should be that these sorts of studies need a control group. Now it may be difficult to find a population that would be good to serve as a control group, which I think points toward the idea that these sort of studies should be used to examine the differences between groups, rather than to make claims about any group in absolute terms. I also think that studies of the form "people who disagree with me are stupid because they think X" are fundamentally dumb. This particular issue is just a small part of why I think that.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
believe that humans originally got coronavirus from eating bats And what are we supposed to conclude from that fact? Someone heard that coronavirus is bat-related, it's not completely unreasonable to assume that it made the jump to humans when someone prepared one for eating.
- ummonk 6y ago
  Yes this doesn't seem like an issue about misinformation, but rather about making a reasonable inference when knowing only a subset of relevant information (they probably remember that coronavirus originated from bats, and early on a wildlife market was suspected as the source of the outbreak and think based on this that people got infected by eating bats).
ulucs 6y ago
> 28% of 18-24 y.o.s believe that humans originally got coronavirus from eating bats Doesn't that simply mean they are a few months behind on the news of the origins of coronavirus? The main theory used to be that, and the topic is irrelevant enough to people that it's unrealistic to expect them to be updated all the time.
- philwelch 6y ago
  What is the official theory now?
  - beervirus 6y ago
    > official theory What a sad time we live in that this is actually a reasonable thing to ask.
    - emiliobumachar 6y ago
      Could you elaborate on why it's sad? I'd like to know the answer. I always knew the bat-soup hypothesis was little more than guesswork, but I never got the news of a more recent, more accepted hypothesis with solid evidence. Is there one? Maybe we're interpreting "official" differently.
      - freetime2 6y ago
        I think the parent was saying it’s a reasonable thing to ask. What’s sad is that there is so much misinformation out there, and most of us are only familiar with the speculations of politicians and pundits with no scientific basis. And “official” seems to have lost a lot of its meaning in recent times.
      - georgeecollins 6y ago
        I am not the original poster, but I think the problem is "official theory" implies that a theory from experts is one to be skeptical of. When I was a kid, lots of people had bumper stickers that said "Question Authority." That makes sense in a free society. But we have learned that in matters of public safety, everyone coming up with their own idea of what is safe and healthy is probably not as good of an idea as everyone doing what experts recommend, even knowing that the experts or the consensus is sometimes wrong or partly wrong. People ask me, if there is a vaccine for COVID-19 would you take it right away, or wait, or not take it? My answer is that I am going to do what my doctor recommends. I still question authority. But I have learned that there are limits to my knowledge and judgement that aren't always obvious to me.
mchusma 6y ago
I had some other takeaways too: -11% of the population would not disagree with a ridiculous claim (4% agree + 7% unsure) -2 to 1 people when given a somewhat plausible event they have never heard of would be inclined to think its more likely false than true. My main takeaway though is getting people's beliefs through polls is hard and you probably need to carefully craft multiple questions phrased in different ways while trying to avoid showing your bias to get a "true" result.
Igelau 6y ago
A good chunk of those aren't necessarily false claims, just ones that haven't been proven true. The study is misinforming us about the misinformation, and NYT is misinforming us about that. Maybe it was bats. Seems like the jury is still out on that one. Even if it's wrong, I think Gen Z's could be forgiven for conflating it with Ebola in the origin story. Mind you, most of them are going to say "bats? I don't know, let me look that up" in real life. In a survey you have to go with "uhh, I do remember hearing something about a deadly virus that came from eating bats..."

benchaney 6y ago

Perhaps the takeaway should be that these sorts of studies need a control group. Now it may be difficult to find a population that would be good to serve as a control group, which I think points toward the idea that these sort of studies should be used to examine the differences between groups, rather than to make claims about any group in absolute terms. I also think that studies of the form "people who disagree with me are stupid because they think X" are fundamentally dumb. This particular issue is just a small part of why I think that.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

believe that humans originally got coronavirus from eating bats And what are we supposed to conclude from that fact? Someone heard that coronavirus is bat-related, it's not completely unreasonable to assume that it made the jump to humans when someone prepared one for eating.

ummonk 6y ago
Yes this doesn't seem like an issue about misinformation, but rather about making a reasonable inference when knowing only a subset of relevant information (they probably remember that coronavirus originated from bats, and early on a wildlife market was suspected as the source of the outbreak and think based on this that people got infected by eating bats).

ulucs 6y ago

> 28% of 18-24 y.o.s believe that humans originally got coronavirus from eating bats Doesn't that simply mean they are a few months behind on the news of the origins of coronavirus? The main theory used to be that, and the topic is irrelevant enough to people that it's unrealistic to expect them to be updated all the time.

philwelch 6y ago
What is the official theory now?
- beervirus 6y ago
  > official theory What a sad time we live in that this is actually a reasonable thing to ask.
  - emiliobumachar 6y ago
    Could you elaborate on why it's sad? I'd like to know the answer. I always knew the bat-soup hypothesis was little more than guesswork, but I never got the news of a more recent, more accepted hypothesis with solid evidence. Is there one? Maybe we're interpreting "official" differently.
    - freetime2 6y ago
      I think the parent was saying it’s a reasonable thing to ask. What’s sad is that there is so much misinformation out there, and most of us are only familiar with the speculations of politicians and pundits with no scientific basis. And “official” seems to have lost a lot of its meaning in recent times.
    - georgeecollins 6y ago
      I am not the original poster, but I think the problem is "official theory" implies that a theory from experts is one to be skeptical of. When I was a kid, lots of people had bumper stickers that said "Question Authority." That makes sense in a free society. But we have learned that in matters of public safety, everyone coming up with their own idea of what is safe and healthy is probably not as good of an idea as everyone doing what experts recommend, even knowing that the experts or the consensus is sometimes wrong or partly wrong. People ask me, if there is a vaccine for COVID-19 would you take it right away, or wait, or not take it? My answer is that I am going to do what my doctor recommends. I still question authority. But I have learned that there are limits to my knowledge and judgement that aren't always obvious to me.

mchusma 6y ago

I had some other takeaways too: -11% of the population would not disagree with a ridiculous claim (4% agree + 7% unsure) -2 to 1 people when given a somewhat plausible event they have never heard of would be inclined to think its more likely false than true. My main takeaway though is getting people's beliefs through polls is hard and you probably need to carefully craft multiple questions phrased in different ways while trying to avoid showing your bias to get a "true" result.

Igelau 6y ago

A good chunk of those aren't necessarily false claims, just ones that haven't been proven true. The study is misinforming us about the misinformation, and NYT is misinforming us about that. Maybe it was bats. Seems like the jury is still out on that one. Even if it's wrong, I think Gen Z's could be forgiven for conflating it with Ebola in the origin story. Mind you, most of them are going to say "bats? I don't know, let me look that up" in real life. In a survey you have to go with "uhh, I do remember hearing something about a deadly virus that came from eating bats..."