The 'Couldn't think where to put this' thread part 2 or 'does my comment merit a NEW THREAD?'

chicagohammer

My favorite line this week

“It is so cold in Chicago, the politicians have their hands in their own pockets”

Well it made me laugh ;lol

TheMadcapLaughs

Chicago, on the news this morning there was a report from Chicago. Almost incomprehensible the conditions there. Getting colder here too, hovered between minus 6 and 7 this morning. Saw a chap in Chicago chuck a mug of boiling water in the air and it turned instantly to "snow". ;scary

SuzanneClaret

;nonono

Ace of Clubs

Kuchinghammer

The conversation seems to have moved on since I last contributed: but I do recommend reading "Humanity (A Moral History of the 20c)" by Jonathan Glover. It deals with most of the horrors, and looks at the whys and hows. Draw your own conclusions.
As for the Opinion Polls and their super scientific methods, I am utterly unconvinced. Remember, these are the boffins who had such great success with the UK referendum and USA Presidential election. A sarcastic
;clap to all their houses.
That's long enough for now ;wink

grey_til_I_dye

Kuching

There is a large potential difference in accuracy between taking polls for potential voting intentions, and for what people believe to be fact.

Dismissing scientific method without clear reason seems to me a very dangerous road to go down.

The whole point about 'scientific method' is that it can be repeated and tested.

What the statistics say (and what has been proven) is that if you take a poll of 2000 people, selected fairly, that will be representative of the population as a whole to an accuracy of over 97%.

So, in the case of surveys about voting intentions in the last election, whilst the results were not reflective of the actual outcome, that doesn't contradict the science.

What the science says is that if you had taken that poll again, with another fairly selected group, you would have got the same results within a margin of error of less than 3%.

Just saying 'Well I don't believe the science' leads, I'm afraid, to the sort of nonsense Trump is so fond of spouting.

Dodger58

Grey whilst I agree with you in principle, opioniin polls cannot be scientific - even if they claim to use scientific methodology.

The only Polls that matter are the actual elections/referenda.

Recent polls have not covered themselves in glory for their accuracy ...

I do believe in science but I don’t believe in polls

grey_til_I_dye

Dodger

Yes, perhaps I wasn't clear.

Whether an opinion poll does or does not reflect the actual outcome of an event is not the science bit.

The science bit says that the opinions collected are an accurate reflection of the opinions of the population as a whole. If the poll was retaken, with a different fairly selected group, you would get mostly the same results.

In the poll referred to earlier in the thread, about knowledge regarding the Holocaust, the science says the results are an accurate reflection of how the population as a whole would respond, to within more than 97% accuracy.

MrsGrey

;ok The methodology is scientifically sound. So it can be relied upon as being representative of the population as a whole. (Subject to the question of how they weighted the results.)

Whether or not people are telling the truth when they answer, or (in the case of opinion/intention) whether they will subsequently change their minds is not known. The reasons why opinion polls (in elections) often turn out to be poor predictors of the eventual outcome vary: the nature of the person answering the question, the way the questions have been formulated and how the results are interpreted are some of them.

But the Holocaust one we were discussing earlier wasn't an opinion poll.

Dodger58

Exactly ;ok

chicagohammer

In my opinion, assessing the validity of polls rest in how you select the sample, the US is such a polarized society that it appears unlikely that a purely randomly selected sample will produce a similar result over a second sample selected even just a couple of days later.

I think that is why the polls have been forced to break down the demograpthics into sub-sets, age, gender, location, known religious or political affiliation etc etc.

And despite this application of science, the actual results still manage to throw up outcomes that bemuse, befuddle and in some cases, actually make you throw up.

;hug

grey_til_I_dye

chicago

But the science isn't being applied to the outcomes. It is only being applied to the likelihood of receiving a similar set of results from a similar group.

Those involved in legitimate polling are fully aware of the necessity of producing a fair sample, since if there weren't a fair sample the results couldn't be extrapolated.

I wasn't really aware of any of this kind of stuff until I read Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science. It's a brilliant, and insightful read.

secrethammersfan

This phenomenon has been common in Poland for some years. A significant number of Poles claim in polls (pun intended) to intend to vote for more liberal or left-wing policies, as they feel that that is how they are expected to vote. They then vote for right-wing (often hard-line conservative) politicians. I think this is what happened with Brexit and Trump. "I know it's better to be in the EU, but I fear the canning world, so I want go back to the way things were, when I knew what to call boys, girls, right, wrong, the enemy, etc."

I am aware this is a generalisation. I jut got tired of typing.

MrsGrey

The point is, if you surveyed 2000 Poles today, and a different 2000 tomorrow then you would get almost the exact same answers from the 2 samples. (Whether or not they made them up, and whether or not they actually go on to do what they say they will)...)

The focus in on the size of the sample, and whether or not 2000 is big enough for the answers you collect to be judged representative of the population as a whole. (It is.)

The quality of the answers is irrelevant.

secrethammersfan

Mrs. Grey, I know that. If you read my post carefully, you'll see I was referring to the reason pollsters were off in the Brexit/Trump votes.

MrsGrey

;ok

(You started with 'this phenomenon' and I wasn't sure which you were referring to, but now I am.)

MrsGrey

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/02/we-took-inspiration-from-mumsnet-the-footballers-wives-support-network

I thought this was an interesting article, and gives 'the other side' of the story.



(It's about how some partners of current and ex-footballers set up a support group online, and is mainly about what it's like to be a wife/girlfriend/mum when your partner is a footballer. It refers mainly to 'top' footballers, but is applicable at the 'lower' leagues too.)

Some stats:
40% of pro footballers go bankrupt within 5 yrs of retiring
33% get divorced within a year of retiring.

buffybegood

Not unexpected, plane wreckage found

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47111632

Ace of Clubs

I had my puppy groomed last week, the picture below shows before, right and after, left. I prefer the before look, my family prefer the after. out of interest can I have your thoughts please?

MrsGrey

Before!

TheMadcapLaughs

Ace, definitely before. Our dog has a similar coat, if you do keep it long, you must groom daily, becomes matted very quickly/easily. Also I think "Tuppence" prefers before. He looks very miserable in the after photo. ;dog

Ace of Clubs

Madcap, thanks for the advice. I'm afraid her look is down to me, earlier that day she had broken one of her milk teeth, I took her to the vet and was given some painkillers for her which I was supposed to put under her tongue to dissolve but I gave her them to swallow and she was spaced out as they contained morphine. As for her coat I will have it cut short next time as this was the fist time she had been to be groomed.

Moojor

Ace,

Is that a Tibetan Terrier?

Ace of Clubs

Moojor No, it's a Cockerapoo. And to my knowledge she has never been to Tibet. ;wink

Moojor

She looks a lot like my dog, whose going for her first trim at the weekend. Want to avoid the very short look.

TheMadcapLaughs

All of these dogs, mines a Goldendoodle, look great with long hair. Big cuddly fluffballs, but they do tend to matt. We made the mistake once of letting her fur get too long and then really struggled with maintenance. When she was cut the groomer had no choice but to give her a number 3, she looked very odd and about half her normal size, it`s weird but they look very, very skinny. Our dog is the spitting image of this:



We could have made a fortune out of signed photos...............

Ace of Clubs

Moojor, Beautiful looking dog. Why do you say avoid very short? The breeder I bought her from recommended short body, long head, I must confess I have always had border collies so this breed is completely new to me, as I am getting on in years I thought I would buy a dog that does not need as much exercise.

OldCastleSwift

This is our dog.

He's weird.

Kuchinghammer

Grey: Just to have a final say on the scientific opinion polls... I agree with Dodger. And just because a scientist (preferably in a white coat) says "this is scientifically proven" is no reason to utterly believe them or their methods. Any real scientist will admit that their findings, methodology, and conclusions are all temporary, until further evidence or advances in testing come along. Historically, scientists (like most other groups in society) have drawn conclusions that have been overtaken by later developments. So to say that I'm "Dismissing scientific method without clear reason" is a bit dismissive on your part (but no offense taken.) On a football forum, I'm not (often) going to bore people silly with long-winded reasons. Basically, my reasoning is that science has, and always will, get things wrong. It's the nature of knowledge and understanding. It's a historical perspective that I'm coming from.
Oh, and COYI ;wink

grey_til_I_dye

Kuching

We are clearly talking at cross purposes.

I don't think, nor have I said, anything that suggests I don't accept:

because a scientist (preferably in a white coat) says "this is scientifically proven" is no reason to utterly believe them or their methods.

My point isn't about scientists, or single polls.

The science of statistics shows that the results of fairly populated surveys have a higher than 97% likelihood of being extrapolated to the wider community.

This is proven; if you don't believe it, then it would be up to you to disprove it, rather than simply say you don't believe it.

I'm not asking for, or expecting anyone to bow down before science as an abstract. However, when scientific methods have been used, and results have been found to be consistent, then I don't see that just dismissing this with a variation of 'meh' is an appropriate response.