## Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

Bofferbrauer2 said:
 Chrkeller said: You simply don't understand statistical modeling.  For the record I am an analytical chemist who does statistics on a regular basis.  Margin of error is plus AND minus, not plus or minus.  Meaning error is suppose to be random, not directional in a singular sense.  As an example if my specification is 8-12, with a target of 10; and I run multiple batches and come up with 11.2, 11.9, 10.9, 11.8, 11.1..  yes I am in specification.  But my error isn't random, it is systematic, which brings into question the accuracy of my model.  Being within error does not equate to the predicted mean being accurate.  But hey, I won't argue with you over this.  Believe what you want. In practically all 11 battle states Trump scored systematically better than he was suppose to.  Being within error doesn't negate systematic error within the true mean.

What's your expertise there? Quantitative or qualitative analysis?

I have experience with both, but more quant than qual.  Single quads for qual, triple quads for quant and I've done structural elucidation with ion traps and ToF.  Early in my career I was heavily into mass spectrometry.  More recently (last few years) I have moved further from the lab and lead stability and pharmacokinetic studies.

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
 Chrkeller said: You simply don't understand statistical modeling.  For the record I am an analytical chemist who does statistics on a regular basis.  Margin of error is plus AND minus, not plus or minus.  Meaning error is suppose to be random, not directional in a singular sense.  As an example if my specification is 8-12, with a target of 10; and I run multiple batches and come up with 11.2, 11.9, 10.9, 11.8, 11.1..  yes I am in specification.  But my error isn't random, it is systematic, which brings into question the accuracy of my model.  Being within error does not equate to the predicted mean being accurate.  But hey, I won't argue with you over this.  Believe what you want. In practically all 11 battle states Trump scored systematically better than he was suppose to.  Being within error doesn't negate systematic error within the true mean.

But arent substances and matter more "static" in the form you use statistics to them?

I mean when you do statistics involving the ever fluctuating human mental mindset then you could say there is a bit randomness involved and that it is something able to be "manipulated" or be badly implemented also no?

Error should be randomly distributed across the sample mean, regardless of what data is being collected.  The only difference between physical data collection and consumer perception data is the range of the error.

Making up an example, but a poll has Trump at 45% +/- 3%.  If I were measuring something my margin of error would be 45 ppm +/- 0.3 ppm.  Both should have distribution around the sample mean, one simply has a tighter range.  But the error should be random in both cases.

Edit

It is my opinion one of two things occurred during polling in 2016.

1) those executing the panels didn't do a great job at sample selection, and those polled did not accurately represent the general population

2) those being polled weren't comfortable admitting they were voting for trump, thus the data collected had inherent bias from misleading feedback

Or maybe a bit of both happened.  For clarity I don't think the polls were awful and as misleading as some make it out to be.  But I also think there were clearly issues and we can do better.

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 27 July 2019

Chrkeller said:
 Bofferbrauer2 said: What's your expertise there? Quantitative or qualitative analysis?

I have experience with both, but more quant than qual.  Single quads for qual, triple quads for quant and I've done structural elucidation with ion traps and ToF.  Early in my career I was heavily into mass spectrometry.  More recently (last few years) I have moved further from the lab and lead stability and pharmacokinetic studies.

Reminds me a bit about my first work, at the national Lab in Luxembourg making analyses of ground and water samples. The main difference is that my analyses were mostly anorganic while yours sound like you're moving more into organic and biochemistry.

I can still remember my biggest challenge in preparation there: Analyses of clay farming ground samples that got seriously wet in transit and then dried up. As in a big, solid lump of clay. How do you break that up for the analysis without compromising the sample with iron from a hammer or similar tool? Solution:

Spoiler!
I just microwaved it at low power until it got brittle. Took forever per sample, but it worked...

But enough of the off-topic now. Just happy to meet another chemist, that's all.

Sweet, there are two of us! I'm definitely more organic and bio driven. My inorganic is rusty, at best.

Chrkeller said:
 Immersiveunreality said: But arent substances and matter more "static" in the form you use statistics to them? I mean when you do statistics involving the ever fluctuating human mental mindset then you could say there is a bit randomness involved and that it is something able to be "manipulated" or be badly implemented also no?

Error should be randomly distributed across the sample mean, regardless of what data is being collected.  The only difference between physical data collection and consumer perception data is the range of the error.

Making up an example, but a poll has Trump at 45% +/- 3%.  If I were measuring something my margin of error would be 45 ppm +/- 0.3 ppm.  Both should have distribution around the sample mean, one simply has a tighter range.  But the error should be random in both cases.

Edit

It is my opinion one of two things occurred during polling in 2016.

1) those executing the panels didn't do a great job at sample selection, and those polled did not accurately represent the general population

2) those being polled weren't comfortable admitting they were voting for trump, thus the data collected had inherent bias from misleading feedback

Or maybe a bit of both happened.  For clarity I don't think the polls were awful and as misleading as some make it out to be.  But I also think there were clearly issues and we can do better.

There's always a difference between the general population and election attendance, which makes the task of selecting a statistical model in political science a complex and inherently unreliable one. Thus, the chances of any social statistical model suffering from biased samples is huge. FiveThirtyEight and others try to circumvent the problem by individually considering and adjusting poll data to reflect the historical bias and statistical precision of each pollster, but, of course, not even their model is absolutely reliable for the reasons mentioned above.

Either way, for instance, I don't think the statewide sample systematically failed in 2016 as you seem to believe. Trump underperformed NV, AZ, CO, NM, TX, among others, and overperformed OH, PA, MI, MN, IA, among others. This suggests random, not systematic, error from a holistic perspective. The fact that some of these states were far close to tipping over than others is, ahem, merely unfortunate, I'd wager.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
 sundin13 said: Unfortunately, a joke that isn't funny enough (or obvious enough) to communicate that it is in fact a joke is in effect often just a small lie. The fact that there is some semblance of truth there doesn't make the bits that aren't truthful any less of a lie, it just makes them harder to discern from lies. Further, too often with political "humor" someone will just use straw men as a joke, but the goal is to make those straw men the butt of the joke. Jokes about identifying as attack helicopters for example are in essence just a means of making fun of trans people and trans rights by utilizing a misrepresentation of the overall argument. Even when the joke is obvious, if the point is to criticize, doing so through warping reality is not healthy as it functions as an argument and not just a humor piece. That said, I'm not talking specifically about your "joke" here. Just talking about the idea of casual political humor as it often gets thrown around on message boards.

I disagree, especially based on white lies. Good intentions, but lies nonetheless. Are white lies ok? If so, then a joke that even uses a small 'white' lie to complete it, shouldn't be any different, and that's a lot of jokes. Each person of course may take it differently, the lie in the joke as well as well as white lies, but that's up to them to decide. No joke is meant for everyone.

This has some truth in certain circumstances but they're also making many separate points overall. One of them being, if you're going to allow people to identify themselves however they like because they feel differently than how society labels them, then it's no doubt going to influence others in many different ways and you would have to allow that for the most part. It's like the people who believe certain others shouldn't be given a platform to speak. If you're someone who doesn't like what's being said and the idea's that come from it, and you want a system that allows for free speech to get your own message out to combat the existing narrative so change can be made, you have to allow everyone the option, even if others are going to use it in ways you wish they wouldn't, within reason. This system like any leaves the door open to some degree to be used in ways it wasn't purposely designed for, but that's just part of the deal. Some people agree with this and think absolute free speech is great, others think certain people should be silenced. Some people think you should be able to label yourself in whatever manner best defines you, others think you should just deal with the existing established system. There really is no 100% right or wrong answer when it comes to these types of scenario's unfortunately.

The ... led me to believe you were focusing on what I had said, along with something I had mentioned in an earlier post to someone else, but apparently this was not the case. My mistake. Not everyone takes everything the way it was meant to be.

A white lie is typically told in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings, so I don't really think it applies in most jokes. And again, I think in a non-political context, a joke which uses a "lie" is typically fine as long as it is clear that it is a joke. It becomes more of an issue, when, like I said before, the "joke" begins to function more as an argument or an attack than a joke. Like, take for example old black face humor. It was certainly meant as a joke, but it was a joke crafted through a lie told to marginalize a vulnerable group. I feel "jokes" which work on that principle should be called out 10/10 times.

In comedy, this distinction is often referred to as "punching down v punching up" and there is some debate and argument regarding this. I am of the mind that comedians should be able to make jokes about anything. On the other hand, typically these jokes are just bad. ContraPoints said while talking about Gervais' "attack helicopter"-esque jokes ("I identify as a monkey lololol") that one of the main issues with this type of humor is not that it is making jokes about being transgender, it is that it completely doesn't understand what is funny about the transgender experience. As such (and these are my own words), it just goes to ridiculously bad arguments to make a punchline instead of jokes.

However, this discussion is primarily framed outside of comedy clubs and instead in message boards. The posting of such a joke in a thread about politics doesn't carry the same innate properties as a joke in a comedy club. It doesn't get that "free joke pass". Typically, it serves as an argument first and a joke second. It is a way of pointing out the ridiculousness in the opponent's argument by exaggerating it and repeating it. However, this type of argument relies on logical fallacy to exist. Yes, it can always fall back on the "it was just a joke" line, but at the same time, it isn't "just" a joke. It is a "joke and..." whether you like it or not, because that is the nature of the forum.

I don't really want to get into the transgender debate here, but I will say this isn't about me wanting to "silence" anyone anymore than it would be if I were to call someone out for the logical fallacies in their non-joke arguments.

And sorry about the lack of clarity about what I was referring to. I have a tendency of doing that. I see an interesting conversation point and I try to talk about it even when I don't really care about how that conversation point came about.

Trump blames the Obama admin for bad air conditioning in the White House.

sundin13 said:
 EricHiggin said: I disagree, especially based on white lies. Good intentions, but lies nonetheless. Are white lies ok? If so, then a joke that even uses a small 'white' lie to complete it, shouldn't be any different, and that's a lot of jokes. Each person of course may take it differently, the lie in the joke as well as well as white lies, but that's up to them to decide. No joke is meant for everyone.  This has some truth in certain circumstances but they're also making many separate points overall. One of them being, if you're going to allow people to identify themselves however they like because they feel differently than how society labels them, then it's no doubt going to influence others in many different ways and you would have to allow that for the most part. It's like the people who believe certain others shouldn't be given a platform to speak. If you're someone who doesn't like what's being said and the idea's that come from it, and you want a system that allows for free speech to get your own message out to combat the existing narrative so change can be made, you have to allow everyone the option, even if others are going to use it in ways you wish they wouldn't, within reason. This system like any leaves the door open to some degree to be used in ways it wasn't purposely designed for, but that's just part of the deal. Some people agree with this and think absolute free speech is great, others think certain people should be silenced. Some people think you should be able to label yourself in whatever manner best defines you, others think you should just deal with the existing established system. There really is no 100% right or wrong answer when it comes to these types of scenario's unfortunately. The ... led me to believe you were focusing on what I had said, along with something I had mentioned in an earlier post to someone else, but apparently this was not the case. My mistake. Not everyone takes everything the way it was meant to be.

A white lie is typically told in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings, so I don't really think it applies in most jokes. And again, I think in a non-political context, a joke which uses a "lie" is typically fine as long as it is clear that it is a joke. It becomes more of an issue, when, like I said before, the "joke" begins to function more as an argument or an attack than a joke. Like, take for example old black face humor. It was certainly meant as a joke, but it was a joke crafted through a lie told to marginalize a vulnerable group. I feel "jokes" which work on that principle should be called out 10/10 times.

In comedy, this distinction is often referred to as "punching down v punching up" and there is some debate and argument regarding this. I am of the mind that comedians should be able to make jokes about anything. On the other hand, typically these jokes are just bad. ContraPoints said while talking about Gervais' "attack helicopter"-esque jokes ("I identify as a monkey lololol") that one of the main issues with this type of humor is not that it is making jokes about being transgender, it is that it completely doesn't understand what is funny about the transgender experience. As such (and these are my own words), it just goes to ridiculously bad arguments to make a punchline instead of jokes.

However, this discussion is primarily framed outside of comedy clubs and instead in message boards. The posting of such a joke in a thread about politics doesn't carry the same innate properties as a joke in a comedy club. It doesn't get that "free joke pass". Typically, it serves as an argument first and a joke second. It is a way of pointing out the ridiculousness in the opponent's argument by exaggerating it and repeating it. However, this type of argument relies on logical fallacy to exist. Yes, it can always fall back on the "it was just a joke" line, but at the same time, it isn't "just" a joke. It is a "joke and..." whether you like it or not, because that is the nature of the forum.

I don't really want to get into the transgender debate here, but I will say this isn't about me wanting to "silence" anyone anymore than it would be if I were to call someone out for the logical fallacies in their non-joke arguments.

And sorry about the lack of clarity about what I was referring to. I have a tendency of doing that. I see an interesting conversation point and I try to talk about it even when I don't really care about how that conversation point came about.

I think you're trying to tie it specifically to trans people. They are not the only people who feel like they are different and should be able to force people to address them as they wish. If you're going to allow this, then anyone who feels that they are not being labeled properly, would have the right to call themselves something that you may very well not want to address them by, but you won't have a choice because it's about how they feel about themselves. Once you open the box it's open season, and to give special privilege to some and not others will just be allowing the same thing to exist, just in a different way. Just because the majority hasn't spoken up about this and made it a key issue for themselves, doesn't mean they don't want it as well and won't take full advantage of it. You can't try and force someone you think is 'normal' to keep following the old rules, because that would be unfair as well. It has to be all or nothing, and the problems that would bring are something you really want to think long and hard about before allowing it. This is just one of the many problems that come along with this scenario as a whole, which is why they make such a big deal of it. The joke part of it is mostly to draw attention so they can point out the potential issues, not to put certain people down. That doesn't mean other people don't see it that way though, but that doesn't change the intent.

Just because someone intends something to be used a certain way or to mean a certain thing, doesn't mean much if someone else is using it for a different reason. Some black people call each other the N word all the time, and even some white people who are really good friends with black people, and yet it's not a problem. That is because those people are not using it for the same reason it was negatively purposed for. Jokes are no different, depending on the individual intent.

As for calling it out, that's fine, you can do that if you like, but what I don't understand is why you didn't call out the other persons modification of my joke? Their's would be no more legitimate than mine based on your reasoning, considering they were predicting the future in their 'punch line', which they obviously can't know. That would mean what they said was a 'lie' as well, and yet you didn't call it out. Why? Seems like there may be some logical fallacy or cognitive bias in your own reasoning.

My joke was to simply point out that Mueller didn't seem to handle the hearing very well. Not like he was ever going to drop a bombshell that we didn't already know, but for how important the Dems seem to think this is, it certainly didn't look to end up in their favor based on his performance.

No need to apologize, I very well could have asked for a better explanation but figured it was the most likely intent. I guess that's why they say not to assume.

His petty level is just insane.

“For instance, the Obama administration worked out a brand new air conditioning system for the West Wing and it was so good before they did the system,” he said.

How exactly would he know how good it was before the new system was installed?  I mean it's one thing for him to try to criticize Obama for policy or something but the A/C? And lie about it in the process?

“They could look into the book deal that President Obama made. Let's subpoena all of his records,” he said.

Subpoena Obama's record because he now has a book deal (as did most presidents after leaving office)?  WTF?

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

His petty level is just insane.

“For instance, the Obama administration worked out a brand new air conditioning system for the West Wing and it was so good before they did the system,” he said.

How exactly would he know how good it was before the new system was installed?  I mean it's one thing for him to try to criticize Obama for policy or something but the A/C? And lie about it in the process?

“They could look into the book deal that President Obama made. Let's subpoena all of his records,” he said.

Subpoena Obama's record because he now has a book deal (as did most presidents after leaving office)?  WTF?

I'm pretty sure Trump isn't even aware of this double standard here