It amazes me that anyone could be so arrogant as to read the abstract, and think that they can understand a methodological flaw in the research.
Not even close. Someone asked for a source to the claim I already quoted, your source was garbage to the claim. 1,200 people are not a majority and that’s no where near a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions.
What, you think you know more than all these experts?
Is that what I claimed? Is that even close to anything I’ve said? I know your source did not back up the claim made. Which is what I replied to. I’m not paying $30 to read your other source, sorry.
All you're demonstrating is that you don't understand how statistics work. One poll doesn't mean much, but multiple studies that all show the same results?
The majority of trump voters were white and studies showed they voted for him out of fear of losing race status
That is the claim, and I've posted more than a half dozen sources verifying it.
If you can find a study that contests the claim, by all means post it, but until you do the burden of proof has been more than adequately met. Because here is the thing. The studies I’m posting? They might be wrong. But the way to prove that is to post other studies that fail to reproduce the results or challenge the methodology. Not to tell me why they think it’s a bad study, nothing could be more useless than that. If the actual experts are constantly modifying and refining their hypotheses based on the realities of the scientific model, what on earth makes the amateurs think their backyard interpretations of the data hold even the smallest measure of truth?
One poll doesn't mean much, but multiple studies that all show the same results?
Where are the multiple? You posted one weak article and whatever was behind a $30 paywall.
Again, you cannot take 1,200 people, look at the results, and then say “the majority of 62,000,000..”
That’s absolute garbage. I never claimed your source was incorrect. I said it did not at all back up the original claim that was made by someone else. And it doesn’t. Sorry, you cannot tell how 62,000,000 people feel by asking 1,200. I’m not sure I made any claim, there is no burden of proof I need. I mean trying to find a study that shows 1,200 is not a fair representation of 62,000,000 might be hard, being so specific and all. I’m not playing along with your prove me wrong grandstanding.
I’ll try to explain again:
Someone made a claim.
Someone asked for the source.
You replied with a source that does not at all back up the original claim by another person.
Thats what quality research looks like, academic paywalls if you don't have a profession that comes with access.
Either way, my point stands.
You're trying to challenge the validity of studies you don't understand. I'm sorry, but no. Some random redditor is not an expert on this subject, neither am I. If you think the peer reviewed study I posted is bunk, then you can find another peer reviewed study that challenges the results, preferably one that references and points out the methodological flaws in my study. I cannot explain to you how uninterested I am in anyone’s armchair researcher opinion on the results of a peer reviewed study. That's why we have experts, that's why we have peer review, that’s why we have the scientific method.
You are not a researcher, it's embarrassing that you think your "review" is relevant to the conversation. Why? Because real understanding takes a lot of learning about things not directly related to the topic at hand. It's not enough to look just at that part that's controversial; you've got to understand all the relevant background material to really grok what you're looking at. That's a lot of basics, and sometimes a lot of history, and if you don't have that understanding, you don't understand anything. Without having the proper context, you don't have the understanding to fully understand what you're looking at, and if you assume scientists are all full of crap or part of a conspiracy, you can be very easy to mislead. Unfortunately, that's how you get people who have no idea what they're talking about but still think they've 'done the research.'
Thats what quality research looks like, academic paywalls if you don't have a profession that comes with access.
I have dozens upon dozens of bookmarks from various universities about various subjects, none behind paywalls. It’s just weird that every thing you linked is behind a paywall is all.
You're trying to challenge the validity of studies you don't understand. I'm sorry, but no. Some random redditor is not an expert on this subject, neither am I.
I’ve done nothing of the such. I said 1,200 people out of 62,000,000 people is not enough to say “the majority of..” anything. That was my claim. You’re really hurting that straw man.
You are not a researcher, it's embarrassing that you think your "review" is relevant to the conversation.
Yep, that’s what reddit is for. There are millions of other people engaging in conversations at this very moment regarding things outside of their employment. I imagine my “review” as you put it is as valid as anyone else here. I’m not going to form any sort of opinion or blindly agree on your sources without having any sort of information because they all happen to be behind a paywall. What were the exact questions, what were the possible answers? Regardless, that doesn’t negate what I said to your original source, the only thing I’ve been firm on: 0.000019% of potential is not enough to say “the majority of.” I get you’re a smug cunt who sounds hilariously religious, but at least attempt to focus your responses on things I’ve said, not things you wish I would have said.
35
u/[deleted] Dec 11 '19
The majority of trump voters were white and studies showed they voted for him out of fear of losing race status...