merlin401 t1_jdsln1f wrote
Reply to comment by jrdjared in From millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population seem much larger to many Americans by jrdjared
Right because this shows people don’t understand percentages not that they don’t understand minority representation. When a lot of people say 20% of the US is trans they are just trying to express that it’s a minority not really that it is exactly 1 in every 5
thedybbuk t1_jdtej9i wrote
What makes you think this? There's another explanation here that some people believe being trans is "fashionable" and kinda are being "groomed." If you turn on Fox News you will see they truly think this is an epidemic. Why do you think that is less likely than your explanation that people are just really stupid and don't understand percentages, but really actually understand the true percentage of trans people in society?
merlin401 t1_jdtge2s wrote
If it were JUST trans people then your argument would maybe make sense. But people are doing the same thing about EVERY minority group no matter how “objectionable” or “unobjectionable” that media tries to paint them. My explanation means people are way less stupid than your explanation would. Like you really feel Americans BELIEVE that about 1:3 people live in Texas and 1:3 live in Texas and 1:3 live in California and no one lives anywhere else? No, they just don’t conceptually understand percentages. Simple
thedybbuk t1_jdthw1g wrote
This isn't valid logic. You're basically saying because they made one mistake about one group, every mistake about every other group is based on the exact same mistaken idea and there can be no other answer for any other situation.
This logic especially falls apart in the current political climate. There is no political party making it their platform that there is an epidemic of people identifying as Texan. There are, however, multiple political parties around the world, including in the US, saying that there is an epidemic of trans people grooming children and making them trans, and of trans identity being fashionable.
In other words, your logic is because these people don't understand percentages they can never think any minority groups are actually bigger than they are. You really can't see why that falls apart?
merlin401 t1_jdtiebc wrote
I have no idea what you’re even trying to say… I’m actually a statistician but believe whatever you want about this data
thedybbuk t1_jdtj7bj wrote
And I'm a lawyer, if we are pulling out qualifications just to support our arguments. Your underlying logic is a mess. I will explain again:
You are taking one statement ("People don't understand percentages") and are trying to apply it across the board to every mistaken belief about minority group sizes. Despite the fact all minority groups are not the same and are not treated the same by society.
To do this you are purposely shutting your eyes to any other explanation that may apply only to some groups and not universally. Like the fact GOP leaders like DeSantis are making it their entire platform that gender dysphoria is somehow spreading like a virus through grooming.
Honestly, what am I saying that you're objecting to? Do you disagree that conservatives have made it a major political point that trans people are recruiting children? Or are you arguing that there's just no way this mistaken belief could be showing up in the data?
merlin401 t1_jdtkt3o wrote
Yes that is precisely what science would consider a better explanation: to find a simple single solution that explains all the consistently odd results. Not to say “wow the same thing happens for all these different instances … Let’s assume one solution that fits our political agenda for one of them and then look for a completely different explanation for each of the other cases.”
cosmernaut420 t1_jdtlsko wrote
You mean you're going to sit here impersonating a statistician and plead for the acceptance of universal human logic as a concept?
Really?
merlin401 t1_jdtu1i3 wrote
Lol what? People aren’t good with understanding percentages and what they mean. Yes I will absolutely stand by that
cosmernaut420 t1_jdtws6c wrote
The reasons for that phenomenon are not nearly uniform, just like literally anything to do with human nature. You can't use Occam's Razor against human logic, it will never work.
An actual statistician would be painfully aware of this, and not gainsaying people presenting perfectly reasonable explanations that aren't just "everyone is bad at estimates for exactly the same reason".
merlin401 t1_jdty90h wrote
Not “everyone” obviously. But overall we see bad estimates from humans on average in every category here when pooled together. So yes that is exactly the reason for this. Your “logic” is not only bad it is totally backwards. But I don’t care to speak with you anymore.
thedybbuk t1_jdto61k wrote
So in other words, you want one simple solution that applies to all situations. And you think somehow this makes you scientific instead of dogmatic?
Nowhere have you even argued against anything I said. You are just insisting one simple solution that applies universally is best.
You are the worst type of statistician. One who wants to ignore human messiness and politics because they complicate things too much. You're basically trying to turn sociology into a study of universal constants, with all the parts that make humans an especially difficult topic to study removed.
merlin401 t1_jdtuf2o wrote
One one simple explanation adequately explains all the results, yes that is best. If the data showed something else and some pieces didn’t fit then yes, other solutions should be sought. Very frequently the most boring answer is the right one, as much as you want to make it be some complicated political thing.
(And for what it’s worth I’m politically on “your side”. The right wing media is poisoning the well regarding trans people and, hey, maybe without that this poll shows 16% estimated instesd of 20% or something. The point is you don’t need that explanation to explain it because every other data point is showing the same misunderstandin)
thedybbuk t1_jdtyi8l wrote
I'm not concerned with which side you're on. It has no bearing on your terrible logic and wanting to remove all human complexity from analyzing this data.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments