• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    il y a 5 mois

    Both that poster and this one can be wrong.

    The difference is that the other poster is just conflating will with favored and it’s kind of pedantic to argue with that.

    This poster is claiming that they are no relationship with reality, which is just blatantly wrong.

    • candybrie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      il y a 5 mois

      The reason people go to “No relationship with reality” is because many people use the polls to say “will” instead of “favored” or conflate “will” and “favored.” When that’s the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn’t have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn’t that predictive. Especially when you’re looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.

      So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        il y a 5 mois

        So, like I said, they don’t understand polls and probability? I’m not sure why I have to be pedantic with the other poster, when this poster is just ridiculously wrong.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          il y a 5 mois

          They’re the exact same mistake. Since the commenter you were responding to wasn’t the one to originally make the mistake, but instead was arguing with someone who’s premise relied on that mistake, it’s weird to only get on them about it.