3 ms·

"Pollsters say people don't lie to pollsters" is a bad argument. I ended up on some list and lied to every caller out of spite. These people are effectively t

"Pollsters say people don't lie to pollsters" is a bad argument. I ended up on some list and lied to every caller out of spite. These people are effectively telemarketers for corrupt propaganda companies interrupting my family at dinner. They don't deserve my honest opinion.

joshuamorton 6y ago
The important thing isn't people lying to pollsters, its people lying to pollsters in a way that's coordinated with a particular demographic or voting block. If 10% of people surveyed, at random, lie to the pollsters and choose the "opposite" candidate out of spite, you'll actually see a sort of reversion to the mean compared to the actual opinions.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Assuming that people are lying at random. I would bet there is a significant correlation with voting habits -- particularly in this election cycle. Why wouldn't someone who holds the view that polls are corrupt and biased have their attitude towards answering them affected by that?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Why wouldn't someone who holds the view that polls are corrupt and biased have their attitude towards answering them affected by that? If your opinion was that polls were biased against your candidate, how would that make you answer? Is it more likely to make you answer in favor of your candidate, answer in favor of the other candidate, or go out of your way to participate in polls to "fight back" against the bias? You can invent a narrative that supports pretty much any activity. Only some of these narratives have any data behind them. As far as I'm aware the best-supported theory by data isn't that people intentionally lie, but that they simply don't participate in polls because they narrative pushed by republican campaigns is that the polls are always wrong. This is, we'll say, half true. What I'm interested in, now that the republican talking point is that the actual polls don't matter, since Democrats are stealing the election anyway, is if Republican turnout will similarly decrease.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pmiller2 6y ago
Are you saying it’s a bad argument, and contradicts previous research because your personal experience differs? That sounds like anecdata, not argument.
- ballenf 6y ago
  There were two arguments made by parent. One was a variation on the silliness of "my data shows that my data is good". The other was personal anecdata explaining that it doesn't have to be a political agenda driving the bad data.

joshuamorton 6y ago

The important thing isn't people lying to pollsters, its people lying to pollsters in a way that's coordinated with a particular demographic or voting block. If 10% of people surveyed, at random, lie to the pollsters and choose the "opposite" candidate out of spite, you'll actually see a sort of reversion to the mean compared to the actual opinions.

kube-system 6y ago
Assuming that people are lying at random. I would bet there is a significant correlation with voting habits -- particularly in this election cycle. Why wouldn't someone who holds the view that polls are corrupt and biased have their attitude towards answering them affected by that?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Why wouldn't someone who holds the view that polls are corrupt and biased have their attitude towards answering them affected by that? If your opinion was that polls were biased against your candidate, how would that make you answer? Is it more likely to make you answer in favor of your candidate, answer in favor of the other candidate, or go out of your way to participate in polls to "fight back" against the bias? You can invent a narrative that supports pretty much any activity. Only some of these narratives have any data behind them. As far as I'm aware the best-supported theory by data isn't that people intentionally lie, but that they simply don't participate in polls because they narrative pushed by republican campaigns is that the polls are always wrong. This is, we'll say, half true. What I'm interested in, now that the republican talking point is that the actual polls don't matter, since Democrats are stealing the election anyway, is if Republican turnout will similarly decrease.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pmiller2 6y ago

Are you saying it’s a bad argument, and contradicts previous research because your personal experience differs? That sounds like anecdata, not argument.

ballenf 6y ago
There were two arguments made by parent. One was a variation on the silliness of "my data shows that my data is good". The other was personal anecdata explaining that it doesn't have to be a political agenda driving the bad data.