3 ms·
Are you basically saying that the article just noticed a bias in the listings ? Because that is addressed by the comment you're replying to. > If more expensi
by ithkuil 4y ago
Are you basically saying that the article just noticed a bias in the listings ?
Because that is addressed by the comment you're replying to.
> If more expensive homes are sold more often (or, are listed for sale longer - say years - because they're unique) then we will see a skew towards more expensive homes being listed more frequently
I think this is an interesting fact about how we communicate. You can be 100% factually correct and yet most of your readers will reach a conclusion that you may have not written explicitly. Not always the author intentionally misleads; perhaps the author themselves are mislead. Often the title itself primes the interpretation of everything else (and often authors don't chose the title!).
- swatcoder 4y agoI’m saying that the article is very straightforward in what it’s saying and who it’s saying that to, and that the OP is themselves tilting at a windmill, mistaking it for a giant. The title hasn’t misled anyone but the OP and the people the people they’ve imagined themselves defending.
- throwaway09223 4y agoBut what you're saying simply isn't true. The article clearly explained their faulty methodologies and this is precisely what I've pointed out. In fact, you are tilting at a windmill, reading more into my comments than what I've written. Projection, much?