Are my assumptions correct?

Discussion in 'Bullion Investing' started by myownprivy, Nov 16, 2017.

  1. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Ohhh, I dunno, maybe THIS VERY SITE?!??!?!

    And you're right. If we can get to 1%, we've got a pretty good sample.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Curtisimo

    Curtisimo the Great Supporter

    All are welcome over on the dark side! :angelic::D
     
    asheland likes this.
  4. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    1% is less accurate than a wild guess in the dark.
     
  5. desertgem

    desertgem MODERATOR Senior Errer Collecktor Moderator

    If you are OK with only 1%, I am glad you are in that area rather than science.

    "Hey astronauts, we are going to send you to Mars. The chances are only 99% you will fall into the sun, but we are very sure you will be the 1%!! Just ask us!
     
  6. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Actually, if you think about it, WHEN have you EVER sampled even 1% of ANYTHING? It's not done.
     
  7. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Not if chosen according to sound sampling science, it's not! Entire state-sized polls are OFTEN done on 500 interviews. It's all about the sampling.
     
  8. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    Yea I know how they do it and those polls aren't worth much. 99 percent of issues aren't important enough for anyone to dispute the findings. 500 landline calls are wildly inaccurate given how many people don't have landlines now or don't answer. Not to mention people telling the asker what they think they want to hear instead of the truth
     
  9. desertgem

    desertgem MODERATOR Senior Errer Collecktor Moderator

    That will make the astronauts feel sooooo much better as they toast!!
     
  10. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Yes, polling honesty IS on the downswing, but the math is still sound. And yes, it IS mathematics, sound hard mathematics. The fact that you might not understand it doesn't matter.

    Hey, do you suppose the reason Comcast makes it more expensive to NOT include phone with a new install than to include it is to help polling accuracy?

    Hint: pro pollsters use random number dialers. They get cells every bit as much as landlines. Number ranges are published.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  11. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    I do understand it which is why I know how flawed it is and all of it's shortcomings.
     
  12. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Your credibility just vanished, sorry. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
     
  13. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    No it didn't, your bias is just showing. The sampling is highly flawed in the first place which has been shown time and time again.
     
  14. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Pro pollsters know EXACTLY what they're doing. Politicians, on the other hand, SELDOM EVER tell you exactly what they know. They tell you what they think they can get you to believe.

    Do you think that the mysterious "inside polls" ever match what the media gets? Don't be so naïve.
     
  15. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    All of them have been increasing wrong, like not even in the ballpark wrong which can mostly be attributed to how they're picking their samples and the fundamental flaws of who is likely to take the time to respond. Most of them aren't worth the time to even read them. It's not rocket science coming up with a sample and asking questions.

    Now if you're referring to the ones who use models based off of meta data and don't bother with the interview polling, yes those are much more accurate.
     
  16. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Now THAT is pure garbage. The next "model" that is worth a darn will be the first one.
     
  17. Clawcoins

    Clawcoins Well-Known Member

    98.736% of the information on the internet isn't credible according to 35 people out of a hundred polled of a sample size of 10% of south eastern northern southeastern north carolinians population of 1,000 that live in one small internet-barren area of the city ( where alcohol is the main grocery sales according to a 1978 poll).
     
    chrisild likes this.
  18. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    That small? Wow, I would have guessed higher.
     
  19. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    Here's what I know - people who don't get away from their screens largely DON'T MATTER to anybody doing anything regarding public policy. Slacktivism gets NO RESPECT and never will. Those people are increasingly being revealed as gullible on steroids, if you're following the news.
     
  20. myownprivy

    myownprivy Active Member

    Oh man. You are indefatigable in your effort to educate some people! Unfortunately, I think, they are either old and stubborn so they refuse to learn something new because they'd realize their previous assumption is just ignorance, or, they lack necessary requisite education for what you share about economics/polling/math for it to make sense to them.

    It's for those reasons that I just don't bother trying with people online.

     
    V. Kurt Bellman likes this.
  21. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Guardian of The Farce, & Dead-Eye Master

    I feel I have a societal obligation to at least try. But you're right, people online are so opinionated, often without justification, that it simply boggles the mind.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page