• 0 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 15th, 2024

help-circle


  • Had a quick glance at this study. Forgive any mistakes, but I have a few “faulting” observations:

    • over a third of the sampled people were people seeking immigration to the US. It could be argued that it could be argued that this points purely to the type of conservatives that seek entry outside their home country. Not the general population of conservatives.
    • this study only looks at a statistical correlation. It’s dangerous to infer causation from correlation as correlation does not equal causation.
    • intelligence measuring as had a long and troubled past. For instance, some tests were used to “prove” black people dumb. Turns out these tests relied on prior knowledge denied to black people. It can be very difficult to account for culture.
    • maybe the tests used in this study only measure for people that are good at taking tests.








  • I wonder how they measured this. Could it just be that they get more utilisation? Even per capita is probably not adequate either. You would need a measure that’s an analogue of per capita. Maybe per result? For instance I could spend half an hour attempting to get just the right set of keywords to bring up the right result, or I could spend 5 minutes in a chat session with an AI honing the correct response.


  • A few questions:

    • How many respondents where there?
    • What was the national break down?
    • How were the respondents selected? Was it random?
    • Were the questions phased universally across nations?

    Without these questions answered, it’s hard to make out what to think about this statistic.

    As the saying goes: “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

    As it is, It would have been more useful if they allowed respondents a selection of choices. Such as: Don’t Know/Care, Neutral, About Right and Not Enough.

    Maybe a meta study would have made a better subject for an article.