3 ms·

There is no reason to accept your casual dismissal of polling or specific polls without proof or even argument of any sort based on the fact that you said so. Y

There is no reason to accept your casual dismissal of polling or specific polls without proof or even argument of any sort based on the fact that you said so. You put too much stock in your gut. So much so that you are able to casually dismiss actual facts because they don't agree with your gut.

salawat 4y ago
They are right. No one has time for polls, and of those who do, I question that their willingness to answer reflects on them being representative. Tell me, have you been polled? If so, have you given feedback beyond a yes or no to a misleadingly framed question?
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  You like the prior poster still haven't provided any evidence for the wholesale rejection of polling as meaningful so I feel no need to disprove arguments you have declined to provide. Asking if I have gotten a poll is a non sequitur. It's not a meaningful question so I see no reason to answer. The plural of anecdote isn't data.
  - salawat 4y ago
    You're the one sealioning. My question was simple. Have you been polled? Have you not? I am tired of people hiding behind pollsters imagined legitimacy, particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think. And yet... Never do I seem to run into anyone who responded to one of these polls. Have you? Easy answer. Yes or no.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      It costs money and time to ask literally everyone what they think. If you invested 5 minutes per person and paid $20 an hour including equipment cost it would cost you 563 million dollars per poll. Also you would still get less than 100% response rate even on your initial poll. After you got in the habit of burning billions of dollars to harass literally every citizen in the US constantly you would find your sample size dropping precipitously as people found ways to block your calls. To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. It makes sense therefore that the chance of a single poll actually calling you personally is very low. In fact 100 polls reaching 100,000 distinct individuals still has only 1 in 3000 chance of someone personally calling you. Small wonder if your phone isn't ringing off the hook. Despite dodging those and every sort of automated asshole calling my phone and being on the do not call registry I have still received a call. The answer is yes. This still proves nothing. I haven't refuted your position by saying yes as I'm sure you will now agree.
      - salawat 4y ago
        The point I'm slowly meandering towards, is it is a very different thing to cold call everyone and get an off the cuff answer than to really get people into a position to recognize the enormity of the answer they are giving. Legislation is literally the parcelling up and selling off of the liberties of everyone around you. This is not a task that should be undertaken haphazardly. To really do it, you should be grappling with questions of "Does this policy make sense across the board, rather than localized to where I am?" Polls never drill into that level of detail. Ever. At best they provide a passing narrative confirmation that makes a nice sound byte. Case and point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104 If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample, then don't come back and try to justify the legitimacy of one policy over another based on the fact that a bunch of people with nothing better to do than respond to cold called political polls (who may or may not even be voters) is truly representative of the will of the people. I'm sorry. When it comes to writing off liberties, I'm in the school of thought that the extra work is necessary, because this isn't something that should be streamlined, especially given there is precious little track record of any streamlining be applied to rectify bad law.. I write my Congressional representatives on issues that weigh heavily on my conscience. Multiple times if I don't feel the point is getting across enough. I've got a couple more letters to get written in light of current events, in fact. Your polls, don't reflect that. Or for that matter, any of the streams of communication that actually end up in a Representative or Senator's mailbox, which to be quite frank, are far more indicative of what the People want, than any Call Center with a script is ever going to get. I don't even care if the Rep/Senator is of the opposing political party than the issue I'm concerned with. Reigning in extreme right/leftness can only happen under the pressure of reminding said individual they are still representing a hefty constituency that differs on platform, and if they like that seat, they'd best pay attention. Polls are not grounds for policy.
        michaelmrose 4y ago
        Please be respectful of my time by reading what I write and not trying to change what you actually said. You said >-------------------------------------------- particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think. >-------------------------------------------- In turn I said >-------------------------------------------- To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. >-------------------------------------------- Now you say >-------------------------------------------- If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample >-------------------------------------------- You know what I said and you knew what I said. The broader context is the parent poster, rather than you, attempted to dismiss legitimate sources by asserting without evidence that polls are worthless. He made the statement thus >-------------------------------------------- You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD. >-------------------------------------------- To which you answered >-------------------------------------------- They are right... >-------------------------------------------- They aren't right and you aren't right. Polling is an imperfect tool. Changing how you phrase a question can change the answer. Getting a representative sample is an imperfect science. This is good cause to ask how it was used vs misused lest a manipulative author come to the preordained conclusion. It is not however good cause to dismiss the entire notion of polling and ask no-one nor that we somehow as you said ask "literally everyone". Nor is it reasonable to determine what the people want by looking at the contents of your legislators mailbox. They will no doubt be full of letters from a passionate self selected minority rather than representing in any way shape or form a representative sample. You can say polls aren't grounds for policy but they are a damn fine tool to find out on average what the potentially millions of constituents think as opposed to the 12 people that wrote letters and if you want a substantial portion of those millions to vote for you then you had better at least understand what they think even if you intend to defy them because you know better.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      For the record Websters defines Sealioning thus Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable. Your question "Have you been polled?" Is an example of sealioning. You don't actually want to know if I have been polled. You don't think any possible answer would illuminate the discussion. You don't intend to make any actually arguments to the validity of polling other than a casual dismissal. You have no intention on engaging in any actually substantial debate or discussion. I started this subthread with substantial points with sources. Answering a manipulative insincere question with a reason why the question made no difference isn't itself sealioning.

salawat 4y ago

They are right. No one has time for polls, and of those who do, I question that their willingness to answer reflects on them being representative. Tell me, have you been polled? If so, have you given feedback beyond a yes or no to a misleadingly framed question?

michaelmrose 4y ago
You like the prior poster still haven't provided any evidence for the wholesale rejection of polling as meaningful so I feel no need to disprove arguments you have declined to provide. Asking if I have gotten a poll is a non sequitur. It's not a meaningful question so I see no reason to answer. The plural of anecdote isn't data.
- salawat 4y ago
  You're the one sealioning. My question was simple. Have you been polled? Have you not? I am tired of people hiding behind pollsters imagined legitimacy, particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think. And yet... Never do I seem to run into anyone who responded to one of these polls. Have you? Easy answer. Yes or no.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    It costs money and time to ask literally everyone what they think. If you invested 5 minutes per person and paid $20 an hour including equipment cost it would cost you 563 million dollars per poll. Also you would still get less than 100% response rate even on your initial poll. After you got in the habit of burning billions of dollars to harass literally every citizen in the US constantly you would find your sample size dropping precipitously as people found ways to block your calls. To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. It makes sense therefore that the chance of a single poll actually calling you personally is very low. In fact 100 polls reaching 100,000 distinct individuals still has only 1 in 3000 chance of someone personally calling you. Small wonder if your phone isn't ringing off the hook. Despite dodging those and every sort of automated asshole calling my phone and being on the do not call registry I have still received a call. The answer is yes. This still proves nothing. I haven't refuted your position by saying yes as I'm sure you will now agree.
    - salawat 4y ago
      The point I'm slowly meandering towards, is it is a very different thing to cold call everyone and get an off the cuff answer than to really get people into a position to recognize the enormity of the answer they are giving. Legislation is literally the parcelling up and selling off of the liberties of everyone around you. This is not a task that should be undertaken haphazardly. To really do it, you should be grappling with questions of "Does this policy make sense across the board, rather than localized to where I am?" Polls never drill into that level of detail. Ever. At best they provide a passing narrative confirmation that makes a nice sound byte. Case and point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104 If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample, then don't come back and try to justify the legitimacy of one policy over another based on the fact that a bunch of people with nothing better to do than respond to cold called political polls (who may or may not even be voters) is truly representative of the will of the people. I'm sorry. When it comes to writing off liberties, I'm in the school of thought that the extra work is necessary, because this isn't something that should be streamlined, especially given there is precious little track record of any streamlining be applied to rectify bad law.. I write my Congressional representatives on issues that weigh heavily on my conscience. Multiple times if I don't feel the point is getting across enough. I've got a couple more letters to get written in light of current events, in fact. Your polls, don't reflect that. Or for that matter, any of the streams of communication that actually end up in a Representative or Senator's mailbox, which to be quite frank, are far more indicative of what the People want, than any Call Center with a script is ever going to get. I don't even care if the Rep/Senator is of the opposing political party than the issue I'm concerned with. Reigning in extreme right/leftness can only happen under the pressure of reminding said individual they are still representing a hefty constituency that differs on platform, and if they like that seat, they'd best pay attention. Polls are not grounds for policy.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        Please be respectful of my time by reading what I write and not trying to change what you actually said. You said >-------------------------------------------- particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think. >-------------------------------------------- In turn I said >-------------------------------------------- To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. >-------------------------------------------- Now you say >-------------------------------------------- If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample >-------------------------------------------- You know what I said and you knew what I said. The broader context is the parent poster, rather than you, attempted to dismiss legitimate sources by asserting without evidence that polls are worthless. He made the statement thus >-------------------------------------------- You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD. >-------------------------------------------- To which you answered >-------------------------------------------- They are right... >-------------------------------------------- They aren't right and you aren't right. Polling is an imperfect tool. Changing how you phrase a question can change the answer. Getting a representative sample is an imperfect science. This is good cause to ask how it was used vs misused lest a manipulative author come to the preordained conclusion. It is not however good cause to dismiss the entire notion of polling and ask no-one nor that we somehow as you said ask "literally everyone". Nor is it reasonable to determine what the people want by looking at the contents of your legislators mailbox. They will no doubt be full of letters from a passionate self selected minority rather than representing in any way shape or form a representative sample. You can say polls aren't grounds for policy but they are a damn fine tool to find out on average what the potentially millions of constituents think as opposed to the 12 people that wrote letters and if you want a substantial portion of those millions to vote for you then you had better at least understand what they think even if you intend to defy them because you know better.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    For the record Websters defines Sealioning thus Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable. Your question "Have you been polled?" Is an example of sealioning. You don't actually want to know if I have been polled. You don't think any possible answer would illuminate the discussion. You don't intend to make any actually arguments to the validity of polling other than a casual dismissal. You have no intention on engaging in any actually substantial debate or discussion. I started this subthread with substantial points with sources. Answering a manipulative insincere question with a reason why the question made no difference isn't itself sealioning.