6 ms·

> if I could find a single instance of someone willing to vouch or share insight on having filled out a BLS survey, that'd cure a healthy chunk of skepticism I

by verteu 7mo ago

> if I could find a single instance of someone willing to vouch or share insight on having filled out a BLS survey, that'd cure a healthy chunk of skepticism It comes from the Census bureau, a letter like this: https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_anyone_else_received_this_letter_from_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/comments/1p1j1my/did_an... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=%22current+population+survey%22+letter&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOjrjcraCTAxW1k68BHQzlOwYQtKgLegQIExAB&biw=1728&bih=994&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=%22current+population+... They only reach ~100k unique households per year, so you'd need to survey a few hundred people to find a respondent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey#Meth... > Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance?

salawat 7mo ago
See, Census letters are one thing. BLS is another. I've actually received Census letters. BLS ones, not so much, and given they claim to be collecting data through surveys all the damn time, I'd expect to have been able to find someone who filled one out. It's weird, to me, that my luck has been so bad in finding someone with context on it. At best I only find someone who knows BLS uses surveys as part of their methodology, usually through reference to the site. No one ever seems to be able to primary vouch for having been the one surveyed. >How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance? Ignorance doesn't seek to invalidate itself. Scepticism does. It does not enrich my life knowing there's a methodology to collect a "high value statistic", but not finding any on the ground proof of people who actually have primary exposure to the methodology. One can't reason around what the system is actually measuring without a sampling of that. I can find screenshots of UI at times. I find papers around low response rates. I never find an actual person who says "Yeah, I get dinged to do those every few months, once every few years..." I sure as hell know when I'm gathering statistical data, that sampling bias evaluation requires foot work, and if you do that footwork, if your methodology works, it shouldn't take you that long to run into someone you've surveyed if you're doing it right. If you're not, and only hitting "the usual suspects", you're not getting a representative sample/measuring what you think you are. So I look for payroll people or people who have done payroll in the U.S. and ask if they've actually ever been directed to provide input. I've been doing it the last few years. Nobody seems to recall ever having been asked to participate in what amounts to billion dollar money movement at stake jury duty. So yeah. This is kind of a weird tic of mine at the moment. Ranks right up there with the time I felt the inexplicable urge to figure out what the deal with zoning as applied to city planning was and how it worked. Something just doesn't add up. I hate that. Mental equivalent of a thumb detection via hammer.

by verteu 7mo ago

salawat 7mo ago

See, Census letters are one thing. BLS is another. I've actually received Census letters. BLS ones, not so much, and given they claim to be collecting data through surveys all the damn time, I'd expect to have been able to find someone who filled one out. It's weird, to me, that my luck has been so bad in finding someone with context on it. At best I only find someone who knows BLS uses surveys as part of their methodology, usually through reference to the site. No one ever seems to be able to primary vouch for having been the one surveyed. >How might one distinguish such "scepticism" from ignorance? Ignorance doesn't seek to invalidate itself. Scepticism does. It does not enrich my life knowing there's a methodology to collect a "high value statistic", but not finding any on the ground proof of people who actually have primary exposure to the methodology. One can't reason around what the system is actually measuring without a sampling of that. I can find screenshots of UI at times. I find papers around low response rates. I never find an actual person who says "Yeah, I get dinged to do those every few months, once every few years..." I sure as hell know when I'm gathering statistical data, that sampling bias evaluation requires foot work, and if you do that footwork, if your methodology works, it shouldn't take you that long to run into someone you've surveyed if you're doing it right. If you're not, and only hitting "the usual suspects", you're not getting a representative sample/measuring what you think you are. So I look for payroll people or people who have done payroll in the U.S. and ask if they've actually ever been directed to provide input. I've been doing it the last few years. Nobody seems to recall ever having been asked to participate in what amounts to billion dollar money movement at stake jury duty. So yeah. This is kind of a weird tic of mine at the moment. Ranks right up there with the time I felt the inexplicable urge to figure out what the deal with zoning as applied to city planning was and how it worked. Something just doesn't add up. I hate that. Mental equivalent of a thumb detection via hammer.