they might not be stupid just wrong, only they might not be wrong either

Please answer true or false:

A fish on your dinner plate might come from the Atlantic Ocean
The location it was netted at might be off the Coast of North Carolina
Therefore all fish come from off North Carolina's coast
True or False?


The general accusatory tone aimed at someone who was debunking an article should probably be moderated. You think I am being mean, because my language was not particularly polite, in your opinion, in regard to an article titled how everyone who agrees with me is stupid, written by a guy whose credentials to discuss statistics are probably spit in a bucket compared to my own. This last is relevant, since if you look back at my posts, you will see that I routinely rip up flawed interpretations of statistics, I doubt I am particularly even-handed about it, but this is not the first post of the 'science proves liberals smarter, says non-scientist' variety I have replied to. Watching people engage is self-congratulatory ego-pumping while they insult you in response to flawed reasoning has perhaps a tendency to make one short-tempered.

I am, in fairness, being a bit mean with the fish question, but in your post you really went after me for essentially misreading my comments. Your mistake, your insults, no comment of mine. I do, if you wish to check, have very long history of using - and pointing out I use - absurd cases to illustrate my points, however, I do not think that my interpretation of that question - my actually real one on reading it - is particularly absurd, nor likely very rare. You may well be right about how most people interpret the question, but don't presume to mind read. The only bias that might illustrate is that I am overly literal about math-oriented questions, and forget that most people are not.

Question: Is the Earth a sphere? y/n?

If 12% answer no, it is a huge jump to assume 12% are stupid and/or Flat-Earthers. Many will remember that the Earth is quite different in circumference when measured round the poles vs the equator, and say no, other will worry it is a trick question, and may remember hearing it was not from someone, essentially treating as though they'd been asked if Greenland were Green, they don't really remember but they have a recollection it wasn't the obvious answer. Some will have, on a paper survey, accidentally checked no because they were answering the question above. Some will simply say no on a whim to be irritating. Not very many will be Flat Earthers... they might not be stupid just wrong, only they might not be wrong either

Many people when asked questions assume that if the answer is 'obvious' then its wrong, and they get get into a lot of trouble at that point. One person, who only does his taxes once a year, might suddenly recall 'on the last dollar earned' and start thinking about how his real tax rate is not the same as the one listed for his bracket, his brackets rate may not have changed but he may well answer that he had paid a different percentage. Is he wrong? Is he right for the wrong reason? Is he stupid?

In the relevant question, we saw that U of M's survey listed some 43% of GOP and 36% of Dems going with 'up'. People rarely appreciate what margin's of error mean, but pundits in particular either don't or don't care, they could go down a list of questions showing no dmeographic difference and see one outlier - 48% of GOP believe X, 42% of Dems do, 3% margin and cheerfully say "Behold, more republicans believe in X, big news!"

This stuff, the way media abuses stats, reduces it's practical use to that of astrology, because someone will write up a column for this left/right blog and no decent editor checked it and its red meat. "I'm smarter than X, and my horoscope says I will have a good day, well, I am in a good mood". It's just what people want to hear, and its not enough to point out that stats are often flawed in media, they know that, they need the absurdity pointed out to them. Personally, I don't think my example was an absurd one, it probably is one of the larger sources of error, the question was poorly phrased and to be meaningful should have been two parts, and should certainly have used 'rates' and you certainly can't prove your assertion that everyone interpreted it like you thought. But I did not, in any fashion, indicate it was definitely the primary factor, and everything you wrote in reply - which was frankly over the top - is based off a demonstrably false assumption on your part.