I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1... or of course this favorite https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-... So, yeah, I'm not surprised people don't accept science.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1... or of course this favorite https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-... So, yeah, I'm not surprised people don't accept science.
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
You bring up something important - that people don't understand statistics as well as science.
A survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate, especially for a binary question such as "did we land on the Moon?"
I'm no scientist, but I trust people like David Attenborough and Noam Chomsky.
I also took "some" Geography courses in University. I also read books and look around me.
World's fucked. And it's human's fault. There's no real argument there. All you have to do is take a look a the industrial effects humans have had to see how much we've fucked it up. That's just what's visible on the "surface". Other things like chemicals permeating humanity and in the atmosphere are not so easily seen.
Anthropocene anyone?
The new David Attenborough narrated series on Netflix is a little mind blowing as well. Clearly gives examples of forest and species loss.
All we can do is hang on and try not to hurt people directly while we're here, I say. But then... all the shit we buy "here" (North America, Specifically Canada and USA) has effects all over the worlds.
From the low paid factory/textile workers, to the giant shipping transporters crossing the seas as we speak.
But yeah, that's why I say "directly". Don't throw trash into a river, or stupid shit like that. Understand that road drains go straight into rivers/lakes without being filtered.
So don't dump oil down there or wash your car straight into it (Car washes, in most places, have their water processed)....
And people who throw cigarette butts ANYWHERE really piss me off. It takes 10 years for a cigarette butt to decompose. And it's just plastic and chemicals. That just gets washed into our rivers and lakes when thrown onto the side of the road.
But yeah... Earth is so fucked, there's no going back now.
And yeah, we are killing all the animals directly and indirectly through habitat loss.
As a professional statistician and predictive modeler, I am amused when people speak of "science" as a monolithic block that you either understand or don't. So much scienceing! Making doomsday predictions aka Paul Ehrlich can definitely draw the attention of people who love headlines and don't look into concepts in even a modicum of detail, but for the sake of one's reputation don't go full-on Thomas Malthus, at least pull a Louis de Branges de Bourcia and be right about one thing.
With food and water shortages that are likely to occur as the population of the Earth increases, yeah, I wonder if we're eventually going to have a population crash?
Food I'm not as worried about, as we've made incredible strides in increasing food yields. We may have to get a bit unconventional in the future (like more people eating insects), but we can produce food for some time, more if we cut down on wasting it. Water will be a challenge. Not so much the consumption, but the contamination of potable supply. Humans themselves are a resource, and an increase in and of itself is not a bad thing. We just need to be smart about it.
Yeah, if no action is taken, clean water will become like the barrels of oil in value in a few decades.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
You bring up something important - that people don't understand statistics as well as science.
A survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate, especially for a binary question such as "did we land on the Moon?"
As somebody with a Master's degree in longitudinal social research (look it up), just saying a survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate is probably the dummest thing I've heard in this whole thread (and that is saying a LOT). I actually agree with all your other points about science and climate change and whatever, but seriously...
A survey is only as good as its sample, and more importantly how accurately that sample reperesents the population you intend to study. If we took a 1000 people from the flat earth convention that you spoke about before, we may very well "discover" that "most people think the Earth is flat". Sample size is important, but only one factor.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
You bring up something important - that people don't understand statistics as well as science.
A survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate, especially for a binary question such as "did we land on the Moon?"
As somebody with a Master's degree in longitudinal social research (look it up), just saying a survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate is probably the dummest thing I've heard in this whole thread (and that is saying a LOT). I actually agree with all your other points about science and climate change and whatever, but seriously...
A survey is only as good as its sample, and more importantly how accurately that sample reperesents the population you intend to study. If we took a 1000 people from the flat earth convention that you spoke about before, we may very well "discover" that "most people think the Earth is flat". Sample size is important, but only one factor.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random. I'm surprised you don't know that such surveys are random, and considering they are typically accurate to a few percent error, I would call that "amazingly accurate". One more caveat, you assume the people being polled are telling the truth.
Err... Did you read where they got the poll data from? A random, unheard of online mobile phone retailer called e2save, with the poll intended to help promote the Xperia series of 4k smartphones...
You have literally just referenced an advert as an amazingly scientific study. Well done.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
You make some decent arguments, but overall you are just saying "there might be a lot of bias, so I'm just going to dismiss the poll". All you provide is the possibility that there is bias. Okay, every poll has some bias. Maybe this poll has more bias, so maybe insead of 3% the error jumps to 6%. Provide me with a mathematical estimate of the margin of error and I would be more inclinded to believe you. As it stands, I certainly agree there is error, but all you offer is conjectures as to why this is poll is supposedly greatly innacurate. However, if you don't provide a mathematical estimate of the margin of error, then you haven't provided anything.
"This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it..."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the above. Not sure why someone would lie about this... but again, if you can show me facts rather than your conjectures I am open to changing my mind.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
You make some decent arguments, but overall you are just saying "there might be a lot of bias, so I'm just going to dismiss the poll". All you provide is the possibility that there is bias. Okay, every poll has some bias. Maybe this poll has more bias, so maybe insead of 3% the error jumps to 6%. Provide me with a mathematical estimate of the margin of error and I would be more inclinded to believe you. As it stands, I certainly agree there is error, but all you offer is conjectures as to why this is poll is supposedly greatly innacurate. However, if you don't provide a mathematical estimate of the margin of error, then you haven't provided anything.
"This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it..."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the above. Not sure why someone would lie about this... but again, if you can show me facts rather than your conjectures I am open to changing my mind.
When I was a teenager I took surveys online all the time because I got rewards for taking them. And I can assure you I did not answer the majority of them accurately, and neither did my gf at the time (you can blame me personally for how bad movie trailers have been the past fifteen years). As OptOut said, if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions, so that is something that needs to be factored in. Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives. Just look at the music polls Brock runs each week if you need proof that people will troll polls and surveys for no reason other than to mess things up.
The questions on the survey could also be misleading (or leading) to invoke certain responses. The survey seems to be wrapped up in a marketing campaign for cell phone picture quality according to the article you posted, so it doesn't seem like it would be something that you can automatically assume is truly unbiased.
Going a step further, you can take a look and see the group that they conducted the poll with is Atomik Research. Here is the description that they themselves provide on their website:
"Atomik Research is an online creative market research agency that delivers qualitative and quantitative research results that will get people talking. Specialising in both quantitative and qualitative research methods we can help businesses, brands and agencies provide insights and generate headlines in the UK and abroad.
As the in-house research division of 4media group, we have a strong PR and marketing background which enables us to script the most resourceful questions to get the best results and provide vital news links for strong editorial features."
Also you do realize that Daily Mirror is a British tabloid right? The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough. OptOut provided a very thorough response for why you shouldn't put too much weight into something like this. Surely you can see the irony in complaining that people don't believe in science and then arguing why the survey of this marketing research agency, which apparently prides itself in conducting polls that will "generate headlines", should be accepted as accurate research?
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
You make some decent arguments, but overall you are just saying "there might be a lot of bias, so I'm just going to dismiss the poll". All you provide is the possibility that there is bias. Okay, every poll has some bias. Maybe this poll has more bias, so maybe insead of 3% the error jumps to 6%. Provide me with a mathematical estimate of the margin of error and I would be more inclinded to believe you. As it stands, I certainly agree there is error, but all you offer is conjectures as to why this is poll is supposedly greatly innacurate. However, if you don't provide a mathematical estimate of the margin of error, then you haven't provided anything.
"This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it..."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the above. Not sure why someone would lie about this... but again, if you can show me facts rather than your conjectures I am open to changing my mind.
When I was a teenager I took surveys online all the time because I got rewards for taking them. And I can assure you I did not answer the majority of them accurately, and neither did my gf at the time (you can blame me personally for how bad movie trailers have been the past fifteen years). As OptOut said, if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions, so that is something that needs to be factored in. Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives. Just look at the music polls Brock runs each week if you need proof that people will troll polls and surveys for no reason other than to mess things up.
The questions on the survey could also be misleading (or leading) to invoke certain responses. The survey seems to be wrapped up in a marketing campaign for cell phone picture quality according to the article you posted, so it doesn't seem like it would be something that you can automatically assume is truly unbiased.
Going a step further, you can take a look and see the group that they conducted the poll with is Atomik Research. Here is the description that they themselves provide on their website:
"Atomik Research is an online creative market research agency that delivers qualitative and quantitative research results that will get people talking. Specialising in both quantitative and qualitative research methods we can help businesses, brands and agencies provide insights and generate headlines in the UK and abroad.
As the in-house research division of 4media group, we have a strong PR and marketing background which enables us to script the most resourceful questions to get the best results and provide vital news links for strong editorial features."
Also you do realize that Daily Mirror is a British tabloid right? The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough. OptOut provided a very thorough response for why you shouldn't put too much weight into something like this. Surely you can see the irony in complaining that people don't believe in science and then arguing why the survey of this marketing research agency, which apparently prides itself in conducting polls that will "generate headlines", should be accepted as accurate research?
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions. First one: most/all teenagers were like you.
Second assumption "if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions" do you have evidence for this, or is it merely heresay? Just because YOU would do this, and your girlfriend/boyfriend, does NOT mean most people will. How do you determine how many people tell the truth? Not an easy thing to do, but the fact is that most polls are still fairly accurate
Sure, some are better than others, but many are 80%+ accurate.
Third assumption: "Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives" so you're assuming people have nothing better to do than purposely troll a very specific poll that probably most people don't care about.
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. Basically, you haven't shown me any math/proof, just YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Beliefs in conspiracy theories such as Moon landing have risen. Back in 2009, a poll conducted by Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of the UK believed the Moon landing was faked.
In short, I don't find your arguments convincing. Which is not to say I don't argree that one should take any poll with a grain of salt. However, there have been so many polls over many years showing that people just believe this stuff that another poll is just more evidence. I would like to think the poll was very biased and is wrong, but that does not appear to be the case, and your arguments again do not convince me otherwise. In fact, I have to be honest, you seem very emotional about this for some reason, and that always brings up my skepticism since arguments should be based on logic not on hyperboles nor personal preconceived biases such as "I used to lie a lot"... etc.
Anyway, this whole discussion while amusing has gotten way way off topic.
I'm not convinced, and you are convinced, so let's leave it at that.
I would like this thread to somewhat get back to the main topic which is that humans are exterminating life on this planet...
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions. First one: most/all teenagers were like you.
Second assumption "if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions" do you have evidence for this, or is it merely heresay? Just because YOU would do this, and your girlfriend/boyfriend, does NOT mean most people will. How do you determine how many people tell the truth? Not an easy thing to do, but the fact is that most polls are still fairly accurate
Sure, some are better than others, but many are 80%+ accurate.
Third assumption: "Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives" so you're assuming people have nothing better to do than purposely troll a very specific poll that probably most people don't care about.
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. Basically, you haven't shown me any math/proof, just YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Beliefs in conspiracy theories such as Moon landing have risen. Back in 2009, a poll conducted by Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of the UK believed the Moon landing was faked.
You had asked why someone would lie on a survey ("Not sure why someone would lie about this"), I provided a possible reason based on my own past experience. I didn't say that the majority that took the survey lied, and I don't think anyone is arguing there isn't a large number of people that believe in conspiracy theories. But posting a tabloid article that says the majority of people in Britain believe something with a very dubious source and saying it is scientific fact is what people are disagreeing with.
You seem to be really focused on us giving "mathematical proof" that disproves it, but you would be better off looking into the actual origins of the survey (which I posted and you seemed to completely ignore when responding). Do you see Atomik Research anywhere on that website you linked to that shows the accuracy of pollsters, or anywhere else for that matter? Pointing out those that have 80% or higher accuracy (or even those that have less than 50%) has no bearing on this since they weren't the ones to conduct the poll in question. Have you seen the survey yourself or how they conducted it? Have you thought about how a PR marketing firm being hired and paid by a mobile phone retailer to conduct a survey might phrase questions in a certain way that get the desired result for promotional purposes? Don't you find it odd that there are no sources or references provided anywhere, not even a page on the findings on Atomik's own website? How can someone possibly provide mathematical proof that the results are inaccurate when the only thing in the public about the survey is tabloid articles? Doing a search online, I can't find anything anywhere other than the tabloid articles and people on other sites doubting the accuracy of it for the same reasons I've posted. What exactly about the survey and the source inspires confidence in you regarding the accuracy of the survey that makes you default to believing it until proven otherwise?
Originally posted by: avatar!
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. ... In fact, I have to be honest, you seem very emotional about this for some reason, and that always brings up my skepticism since arguments should be based on logic not on hyperboles nor personal preconceived biases such as "I used to lie a lot"... etc.
Dude, I really don't know what to say at this point if you think doubting the reporting of tabloids is me being biased and emotional when no valid news outlets or scientific journals or anything have reported on it. ¯\_(
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions. First one: most/all teenagers were like you.
Second assumption "if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions" do you have evidence for this, or is it merely heresay? Just because YOU would do this, and your girlfriend/boyfriend, does NOT mean most people will. How do you determine how many people tell the truth? Not an easy thing to do, but the fact is that most polls are still fairly accurate
Sure, some are better than others, but many are 80%+ accurate.
Third assumption: "Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives" so you're assuming people have nothing better to do than purposely troll a very specific poll that probably most people don't care about.
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. Basically, you haven't shown me any math/proof, just YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Beliefs in conspiracy theories such as Moon landing have risen. Back in 2009, a poll conducted by Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of the UK believed the Moon landing was faked.
You had asked why someone would lie on a survey ("Not sure why someone would lie about this"), I provided a possible reason based on my own past experience. I didn't say that the majority that took the survey lied, and I don't think anyone is arguing there isn't a large number of people that believe in conspiracy theories. But posting a tabloid article that says the majority of people in Britain believe something with a very dubious source and saying it is scientific fact is what people are disagreeing with.
You seem to be really focused on us giving "mathematical proof" that disproves it, but you would be better off looking into the actual origins of the survey (which I posted and you seemed to completely ignore when responding). Do you see Atomik Research anywhere on that website you linked to that shows the accuracy of pollsters, or anywhere else for that matter? Pointing out those that have 80% or higher accuracy (or even those that have less than 50%) has no bearing on this since they weren't the ones to conduct the poll in question. Have you seen the survey yourself or how they conducted it? Have you thought about how a PR marketing firm being hired and paid by a mobile phone retailer to conduct a survey might phrase questions in a certain way that get the desired result for promotional purposes? Don't you find it odd that there are no sources or references provided anywhere, not even a page on the findings on Atomik's own website? How can someone possibly provide mathematical proof that the results are inaccurate when the only thing in the public about the survey is tabloid articles? Doing a search online, I can't find anything anywhere other than the tabloid articles and people on other sites doubting the accuracy of it for the same reasons I've posted. What exactly about the survey and the source inspires confidence in you regarding the accuracy of the survey that makes you default to believing it until proven otherwise?
Originally posted by: avatar!
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. ... In fact, I have to be honest, you seem very emotional about this for some reason, and that always brings up my skepticism since arguments should be based on logic not on hyperboles nor personal preconceived biases such as "I used to lie a lot"... etc.
Dude, I really don't know what to say at this point if you think doubting the reporting of tabloids is me being biased and emotional when no valid news outlets or scientific journals or anything have reported on it. ¯\_(
Comments
Originally posted by: avatar!
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1... or of course this favorite
mmmmyeahhhhhhh
Originally posted by: avatar!
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1... or of course this favorite
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat
or of course this favorite
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
You bring up something important - that people don't understand statistics as well as science.
A survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate, especially for a binary question such as "did we land on the Moon?"
The margin of error in this case is around 3%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
The root problem is there are too many people on the planet. I wonder if these "rebels" would be willing to not have kids?
I also took "some" Geography courses in University. I also read books and look around me.
World's fucked. And it's human's fault. There's no real argument there. All you have to do is take a look a the industrial effects humans have had to see how much we've fucked it up. That's just what's visible on the "surface". Other things like chemicals permeating humanity and in the atmosphere are not so easily seen.
Anthropocene anyone?
The new David Attenborough narrated series on Netflix is a little mind blowing as well. Clearly gives examples of forest and species loss.
All we can do is hang on and try not to hurt people directly while we're here, I say. But then... all the shit we buy "here" (North America, Specifically Canada and USA) has effects all over the worlds.
From the low paid factory/textile workers, to the giant shipping transporters crossing the seas as we speak.
But yeah, that's why I say "directly". Don't throw trash into a river, or stupid shit like that. Understand that road drains go straight into rivers/lakes without being filtered.
So don't dump oil down there or wash your car straight into it (Car washes, in most places, have their water processed)....
And people who throw cigarette butts ANYWHERE really piss me off. It takes 10 years for a cigarette butt to decompose. And it's just plastic and chemicals. That just gets washed into our rivers and lakes when thrown onto the side of the road.
But yeah... Earth is so fucked, there's no going back now.
And yeah, we are killing all the animals directly and indirectly through habitat loss.
With food and water shortages that are likely to occur as the population of the Earth increases, yeah, I wonder if we're eventually going to have a population crash?
Food I'm not as worried about, as we've made incredible strides in increasing food yields. We may have to get a bit unconventional in the future (like more people eating insects), but we can produce food for some time, more if we cut down on wasting it. Water will be a challenge. Not so much the consumption, but the contamination of potable supply. Humans themselves are a resource, and an increase in and of itself is not a bad thing. We just need to be smart about it.
Yeah, if no action is taken, clean water will become like the barrels of oil in value in a few decades.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat
or of course this favorite
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
You bring up something important - that people don't understand statistics as well as science.
A survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate, especially for a binary question such as "did we land on the Moon?"
The margin of error in this case is around 3%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar...
As somebody with a Master's degree in longitudinal social research (look it up), just saying a survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate is probably the dummest thing I've heard in this whole thread (and that is saying a LOT). I actually agree with all your other points about science and climate change and whatever, but seriously...
A survey is only as good as its sample, and more importantly how accurately that sample reperesents the population you intend to study. If we took a 1000 people from the flat earth convention that you spoke about before, we may very well "discover" that "most people think the Earth is flat". Sample size is important, but only one factor.
I was fortunate enough to go to one of those "fancy-shmancy" rich New England schools for graduate and postdoctoral work. Although I'm not a climate scientist, I am a scientist and can pretty quickly distinguish between science and BS. Furthermore, science today is often multidisciplinary, such as the work done on the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, that involved hundreds of scientists in numerous fields. So yes, climate change is real and the current trend is due to humans. The mass extinction epoch we are in is real and it too is due to humans. Of course, I'm not surprised people are "skeptical" (which often means they are closed-minded and refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs). After all, people like to believe shite conspiracy theories such as the Earth is flat
or of course this favorite
As a man who has studied science I too also agree that these Brits must be fools. I feel the sample size of 1000~ people accurately captured the views of 66 million people. If more people could read articles from The Sun maybe they would almost be as smart as people from rich New England schools.
You bring up something important - that people don't understand statistics as well as science.
A survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate, especially for a binary question such as "did we land on the Moon?"
The margin of error in this case is around 3%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
As somebody with a Master's degree in longitudinal social research (look it up), just saying a survey of 1000 people is amazingly accurate is probably the dummest thing I've heard in this whole thread (and that is saying a LOT). I actually agree with all your other points about science and climate change and whatever, but seriously...
A survey is only as good as its sample, and more importantly how accurately that sample reperesents the population you intend to study. If we took a 1000 people from the flat earth convention that you spoke about before, we may very well "discover" that "most people think the Earth is flat". Sample size is important, but only one factor.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random. I'm surprised you don't know that such surveys are random, and considering they are typically accurate to a few percent error, I would call that "amazingly accurate". One more caveat, you assume the people being polled are telling the truth.
You have literally just referenced an advert as an amazingly scientific study. Well done.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
You make some decent arguments, but overall you are just saying "there might be a lot of bias, so I'm just going to dismiss the poll". All you provide is the possibility that there is bias. Okay, every poll has some bias. Maybe this poll has more bias, so maybe insead of 3% the error jumps to 6%. Provide me with a mathematical estimate of the margin of error and I would be more inclinded to believe you. As it stands, I certainly agree there is error, but all you offer is conjectures as to why this is poll is supposedly greatly innacurate. However, if you don't provide a mathematical estimate of the margin of error, then you haven't provided anything.
"This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it..."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the above. Not sure why someone would lie about this... but again, if you can show me facts rather than your conjectures I am open to changing my mind.
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
You make some decent arguments, but overall you are just saying "there might be a lot of bias, so I'm just going to dismiss the poll". All you provide is the possibility that there is bias. Okay, every poll has some bias. Maybe this poll has more bias, so maybe insead of 3% the error jumps to 6%. Provide me with a mathematical estimate of the margin of error and I would be more inclinded to believe you. As it stands, I certainly agree there is error, but all you offer is conjectures as to why this is poll is supposedly greatly innacurate. However, if you don't provide a mathematical estimate of the margin of error, then you haven't provided anything.
"This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it..."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the above. Not sure why someone would lie about this... but again, if you can show me facts rather than your conjectures I am open to changing my mind.
When I was a teenager I took surveys online all the time because I got rewards for taking them. And I can assure you I did not answer the majority of them accurately, and neither did my gf at the time (you can blame me personally for how bad movie trailers have been the past fifteen years). As OptOut said, if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions, so that is something that needs to be factored in. Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives. Just look at the music polls Brock runs each week if you need proof that people will troll polls and surveys for no reason other than to mess things up.
The questions on the survey could also be misleading (or leading) to invoke certain responses. The survey seems to be wrapped up in a marketing campaign for cell phone picture quality according to the article you posted, so it doesn't seem like it would be something that you can automatically assume is truly unbiased.
Going a step further, you can take a look and see the group that they conducted the poll with is Atomik Research. Here is the description that they themselves provide on their website:
"Atomik Research is an online creative market research agency that delivers qualitative and quantitative research results that will get people talking. Specialising in both quantitative and qualitative research methods we can help businesses, brands and agencies provide insights and generate headlines in the UK and abroad.
As the in-house research division of 4media group, we have a strong PR and marketing background which enables us to script the most resourceful questions to get the best results and provide vital news links for strong editorial features."
https://www.atomikresearch.co.uk/about-atomik-research/
Also you do realize that Daily Mirror is a British tabloid right? The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough. OptOut provided a very thorough response for why you shouldn't put too much weight into something like this. Surely you can see the irony in complaining that people don't believe in science and then arguing why the survey of this marketing research agency, which apparently prides itself in conducting polls that will "generate headlines", should be accepted as accurate research?
Yes... "a survely is only as good as its sample" which is why polls such as the aforementioned are random.
While I'm here, I thought I might as well also correct this part, as it is infuratingly incorrect.
Polls are not inherently random. They have to be carefully considered, well designed and properly implimented to even come close. A poll of human beings is NEVER going to be truly random, and even the best designed studies that take YEARS to select their "random" sample will contain error. Please believe me, this is like Social Research Methods 101 here. There are all sorts of biases, known as selection biases, which stop samples being truly random. Who has access to the poll, when and where the poll is being carried out, why it is being carried out, even the method used to conduct the poll, either online, paper, telephone, mail-in, in person, all these things effect both the sample composition and the quality of results obtained.
Lets look at the example you quote, for arguments sake. You claim it to be "amazingly accurate" and to represent the entire population of the UK. Well, no, no it doesn't. The poll was conducted by a little known mobile phone retail website, e2save. Do we know that all the people visiting their website live in the UK? No, we do not. Respondents could be from anywhere. However, why don't we be fair and pretend that they ALL were from the UK. So it's a random sample now then? Nope! It is only a sample of the people visiting their site at a given time when the poll was being conducted, which is a considerably DIFFERENT population to the UK as a whole.
Lets get closer. If it isn't representitive of the the UK population, could we say it is at least representative of mobile phone purchasing consumers in the UK? No, sorry. e2save, as I mentioned is one of the smallest online retailers for mobile phones in the UK. It does not have enough customers to be properly representitive of the full UK mobile phone consumer market. For example, it's emphasis on value deals and special offers means it is going to be attracting a certain kind of budget-oriented customer, who may not represent a more general market participant. Meanwhile, it completly excludes the large majority of UK mobile phone consumers who prefer to purchase mobile phones in physical retail locations, rather than online. So, no, it is not a "random" sample of mobile phone consumers either.
Ok, ok, haven't I made my point yet? Sorry, not quite! Do you want to say, at the very LEAST that this poll is representative of e2save customers? No, sorry, wrong again! The poll respondents self-select to take the poll, which makes them differ from those who choose not to take it. How different are those who CHOOSE to take the poll from those who choose NOT to? We can't say for sure, but seeing as they have already differentiated themselves in one way, we can assume there will be other differences too. Also, as this is an online poll, do we even know that these respondents are ordinarily customers of e2save anyway? Could these people have simply clicked on a link from FaceBook or Twitter or anywhere else to take the poll? It is certainly possible that many, many did.
Alright, alright, is that enough? Mercy? No, but almost done though. Can we say that this poll is representitve of the values and opinions of those who TOOK THE POLL? No we can not. The poll is clearly full of sensational concepts and ideas, which would tend to provoke a less than serious response from many participants. Anonymous online polls are notorious for their inaccuracy, with many participants either not bothering to fill out the form in full, or registering intentionally untruthful responses. How about coersion? Are respondents being paid, or otherwise rewarded with special deals and offers for their participation? This has been proven many times to skew results and lead to erronous responses. This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it...
So, PLEASE tell me again how amazingly scientifically accurate this survey is, and apparently ALL surveys are. Clearly my undergraduate and postgraduate studies have left me terribly ill-informed on the matter.
You make some decent arguments, but overall you are just saying "there might be a lot of bias, so I'm just going to dismiss the poll". All you provide is the possibility that there is bias. Okay, every poll has some bias. Maybe this poll has more bias, so maybe insead of 3% the error jumps to 6%. Provide me with a mathematical estimate of the margin of error and I would be more inclinded to believe you. As it stands, I certainly agree there is error, but all you offer is conjectures as to why this is poll is supposedly greatly innacurate. However, if you don't provide a mathematical estimate of the margin of error, then you haven't provided anything.
"This poll cannot with ANY sense of certainty be said to reflect the very people who actually took it..."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the above. Not sure why someone would lie about this... but again, if you can show me facts rather than your conjectures I am open to changing my mind.
When I was a teenager I took surveys online all the time because I got rewards for taking them. And I can assure you I did not answer the majority of them accurately, and neither did my gf at the time (you can blame me personally for how bad movie trailers have been the past fifteen years). As OptOut said, if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions, so that is something that needs to be factored in. Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives. Just look at the music polls Brock runs each week if you need proof that people will troll polls and surveys for no reason other than to mess things up.
The questions on the survey could also be misleading (or leading) to invoke certain responses. The survey seems to be wrapped up in a marketing campaign for cell phone picture quality according to the article you posted, so it doesn't seem like it would be something that you can automatically assume is truly unbiased.
Going a step further, you can take a look and see the group that they conducted the poll with is Atomik Research. Here is the description that they themselves provide on their website:
"Atomik Research is an online creative market research agency that delivers qualitative and quantitative research results that will get people talking. Specialising in both quantitative and qualitative research methods we can help businesses, brands and agencies provide insights and generate headlines in the UK and abroad.
As the in-house research division of 4media group, we have a strong PR and marketing background which enables us to script the most resourceful questions to get the best results and provide vital news links for strong editorial features."
https://www.atomikresearch.co.uk/about-atomik-research/
Also you do realize that Daily Mirror is a British tabloid right? The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough. OptOut provided a very thorough response for why you shouldn't put too much weight into something like this. Surely you can see the irony in complaining that people don't believe in science and then arguing why the survey of this marketing research agency, which apparently prides itself in conducting polls that will "generate headlines", should be accepted as accurate research?
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions. First one: most/all teenagers were like you.
Second assumption "if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions" do you have evidence for this, or is it merely heresay? Just because YOU would do this, and your girlfriend/boyfriend, does NOT mean most people will. How do you determine how many people tell the truth? Not an easy thing to do, but the fact is that most polls are still fairly accurate
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Sure, some are better than others, but many are 80%+ accurate.
Third assumption: "Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives" so you're assuming people have nothing better to do than purposely troll a very specific poll that probably most people don't care about.
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. Basically, you haven't shown me any math/proof, just YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Beliefs in conspiracy theories such as Moon landing have risen. Back in 2009, a poll conducted by Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of the UK believed the Moon landing was faked.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110128204607/http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/12/fake-right.cfm
In short, I don't find your arguments convincing. Which is not to say I don't argree that one should take any poll with a grain of salt. However, there have been so many polls over many years showing that people just believe this stuff that another poll is just more evidence. I would like to think the poll was very biased and is wrong, but that does not appear to be the case, and your arguments again do not convince me otherwise. In fact, I have to be honest, you seem very emotional about this for some reason, and that always brings up my skepticism since arguments should be based on logic not on hyperboles nor personal preconceived biases such as "I used to lie a lot"... etc.
Anyway, this whole discussion while amusing has gotten way way off topic.
I'm not convinced, and you are convinced, so let's leave it at that.
I would like this thread to somewhat get back to the main topic which is that humans are exterminating life on this planet...
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions. First one: most/all teenagers were like you.
Second assumption "if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions" do you have evidence for this, or is it merely heresay? Just because YOU would do this, and your girlfriend/boyfriend, does NOT mean most people will. How do you determine how many people tell the truth? Not an easy thing to do, but the fact is that most polls are still fairly accurate
https://projects.fivethirtyeight....
Sure, some are better than others, but many are 80%+ accurate.
Third assumption: "Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives" so you're assuming people have nothing better to do than purposely troll a very specific poll that probably most people don't care about.
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. Basically, you haven't shown me any math/proof, just YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Beliefs in conspiracy theories such as Moon landing have risen. Back in 2009, a poll conducted by Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of the UK believed the Moon landing was faked.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110128204607/http://eandt.thei...
You had asked why someone would lie on a survey ("Not sure why someone would lie about this"), I provided a possible reason based on my own past experience. I didn't say that the majority that took the survey lied, and I don't think anyone is arguing there isn't a large number of people that believe in conspiracy theories. But posting a tabloid article that says the majority of people in Britain believe something with a very dubious source and saying it is scientific fact is what people are disagreeing with.
You seem to be really focused on us giving "mathematical proof" that disproves it, but you would be better off looking into the actual origins of the survey (which I posted and you seemed to completely ignore when responding). Do you see Atomik Research anywhere on that website you linked to that shows the accuracy of pollsters, or anywhere else for that matter? Pointing out those that have 80% or higher accuracy (or even those that have less than 50%) has no bearing on this since they weren't the ones to conduct the poll in question. Have you seen the survey yourself or how they conducted it? Have you thought about how a PR marketing firm being hired and paid by a mobile phone retailer to conduct a survey might phrase questions in a certain way that get the desired result for promotional purposes? Don't you find it odd that there are no sources or references provided anywhere, not even a page on the findings on Atomik's own website? How can someone possibly provide mathematical proof that the results are inaccurate when the only thing in the public about the survey is tabloid articles? Doing a search online, I can't find anything anywhere other than the tabloid articles and people on other sites doubting the accuracy of it for the same reasons I've posted. What exactly about the survey and the source inspires confidence in you regarding the accuracy of the survey that makes you default to believing it until proven otherwise?
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. ... In fact, I have to be honest, you seem very emotional about this for some reason, and that always brings up my skepticism since arguments should be based on logic not on hyperboles nor personal preconceived biases such as "I used to lie a lot"... etc.
Dude, I really don't know what to say at this point if you think doubting the reporting of tabloids is me being biased and emotional when no valid news outlets or scientific journals or anything have reported on it. ¯\_(
Seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions. First one: most/all teenagers were like you.
Second assumption "if you are offering some sort of incentive for people to take the survey, then naturally a lot of people are going to take it solely to get the reward and speed through/not pay attention to the actual questions" do you have evidence for this, or is it merely heresay? Just because YOU would do this, and your girlfriend/boyfriend, does NOT mean most people will. How do you determine how many people tell the truth? Not an easy thing to do, but the fact is that most polls are still fairly accurate
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Sure, some are better than others, but many are 80%+ accurate.
Third assumption: "Not to mention that online polls like this leave themselves open to trolling even when there are no reward incentives" so you're assuming people have nothing better to do than purposely troll a very specific poll that probably most people don't care about.
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. Basically, you haven't shown me any math/proof, just YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Beliefs in conspiracy theories such as Moon landing have risen. Back in 2009, a poll conducted by Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of the UK believed the Moon landing was faked.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110128204607/http://eandt.thei...
You had asked why someone would lie on a survey ("Not sure why someone would lie about this"), I provided a possible reason based on my own past experience. I didn't say that the majority that took the survey lied, and I don't think anyone is arguing there isn't a large number of people that believe in conspiracy theories. But posting a tabloid article that says the majority of people in Britain believe something with a very dubious source and saying it is scientific fact is what people are disagreeing with.
You seem to be really focused on us giving "mathematical proof" that disproves it, but you would be better off looking into the actual origins of the survey (which I posted and you seemed to completely ignore when responding). Do you see Atomik Research anywhere on that website you linked to that shows the accuracy of pollsters, or anywhere else for that matter? Pointing out those that have 80% or higher accuracy (or even those that have less than 50%) has no bearing on this since they weren't the ones to conduct the poll in question. Have you seen the survey yourself or how they conducted it? Have you thought about how a PR marketing firm being hired and paid by a mobile phone retailer to conduct a survey might phrase questions in a certain way that get the desired result for promotional purposes? Don't you find it odd that there are no sources or references provided anywhere, not even a page on the findings on Atomik's own website? How can someone possibly provide mathematical proof that the results are inaccurate when the only thing in the public about the survey is tabloid articles? Doing a search online, I can't find anything anywhere other than the tabloid articles and people on other sites doubting the accuracy of it for the same reasons I've posted. What exactly about the survey and the source inspires confidence in you regarding the accuracy of the survey that makes you default to believing it until proven otherwise?
It's truly the Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and that should give one pause. However, that does not mean their poll is way off mark. The fact that you say "The fact that I can only see tabloids reporting on this should be enough." shows that you're certainly biased. ... In fact, I have to be honest, you seem very emotional about this for some reason, and that always brings up my skepticism since arguments should be based on logic not on hyperboles nor personal preconceived biases such as "I used to lie a lot"... etc.
Dude, I really don't know what to say at this point if you think doubting the reporting of tabloids is me being biased and emotional when no valid news outlets or scientific journals or anything have reported on it. ¯\_(
What caused the last five ice ages to melt. Surely it wasn't the retarded monkey-fish-frog we evolved from's fault.
fellas, fellas! This is way too many words. Can you TLDNR it please?
Tldr- "the sky is falling"
"No its not"
"Yes it is, im smart so i know"
"No"