If only it were so simple to know that X percent of self-reporting survey responses are unreliable and adjust outcomes accordingly. My viewpoint, knowing that self-reporting is clearly dubious, is to pay little attention to survey data.
I am sympathetic to this reaction and don't hold it against anyone who resorts to a general skepticism toward survey data. But as someone who has worked on surveys and who uses survey data for my own research, I can affirmatively say there is a huge spectrum in quality in surveys (and in how they are reported), and with a little experience, you can recognize the good from the bad pretty quickly.
Of course, everyone is in charge of their own time, and it is entirely valid to spend one's resources on other things besides figuring out who is lying to you with survey junk.
Respectfully disagree, the Left seem to be bat shit crazy. Maybe it’s because the political right is more guided by traditional social norms and violence is traditionally taboo.
I’m no fan of the Left, but “violence is traditionally taboo” so the right is less violent seems like a hard position to defend? Aren’t the MMA, military, law enforcement, and honor culture all right coded? You’re correct that the right tends to be more guided by traditional social norms, but I’m not entirely sure traditional social norms are less violent.
Maybe the difference is related to organized violence in the right (Army, self defense, border control, ICE, law enforcement) vs. "spontaneous" chaotic or even "grassroots" violence in the left (BLM riots, Antifa, terrorist attacks, guerrillas, looting, gang violence).
Organized violence is always subjected to at least some norms that would enforce accountability (entering a church and opening fire against someone isn't self defense and the attacker will be charged, law enforcement will be dragged to court even for situations where force had to be applied to protect innocents, border control has to be compliant with international agreements like ECHR at least here in Europe).
Chaotic "grassroots" violence is free to do whatever the attacker wants because they tend to believe that the Cause® they defend overwrites any moral limit. That's why they can happily justify looting tvs, the Charlie Kirk assassination, Hamas 7-O, ETA, Al Qaeda, FARC guerrillas, and even drug cartels.
I've described this violence as "spontaneous" despite it isn't like that all, it is also organized (and handsomely funded in many cases) but it appears as not.
But a taboo on chaos is fundamentally different from a taboo on violence. A taboo doesn’t go away because it’s well organized?
We also need to address the KKK, ruby ridge, January 6th, the Oklahoma City bombing, and Islamic terrorism. The implicit claim that disorganized violence is norm free is also not true? Like “left wing” violence is usually anti corporation or against institutions of power, they don’t usually just attack random people. So it’s organized and follows a predictable pattern, right? That’s how we know it’s “left coded” in the first place.
I don’t want us getting off track here though. The claim that “violence is taboo” on the right is the original argument and that’s the claim I’m disagreeing with, not that left or right violence has different methods, targets, goals, or norms. I’ll grant all that, but that’s categorically different from the right having a taboo on violence.
Cremieux Recueil getting people to think critically about survey results always gets a "like" from me.
I remember from the 2-year stint I spent working in the survey statistics, seeing those nonsense answers. Especially in the age of self-identification of gender, etc., we would see respondents with write-in answers of "Attack Helicopter" or "Batman" for their gender. Higher quality surveys will try to disqualify these respondents or at least filter out the obviously bogus responses. I doubt the mass-produced Gallup/Pew/YouGov style polling does, but I never worked with those kind of firms specifically.
This is a problem that seems to be getting worse as survey response rates plummet and surveys resort to online survey modes. A lot of people are brain dead in front of a screen from being constantly in front of screens.
I appreciate the post and will admit to trying to be “funny” on surveys I took in the past. My main take away is that surveyors need to define the terms that they are using on their surveys very precisely. But even doing that won’t prevent any jokesters. But there are also the small group in a sample that I don’t think are appropriate subjects for a survey about violence. For example (yes a leftist journalist first comes to mind) Taylor Lorenz who voiced out loud the words “understanding” and “joy” after the assassination of Brian Thompson. I think her muddled mind would rationalize around even the most stringent definitions. Hopefully statistics will prevail.
If only it were so simple to know that X percent of self-reporting survey responses are unreliable and adjust outcomes accordingly. My viewpoint, knowing that self-reporting is clearly dubious, is to pay little attention to survey data.
I am sympathetic to this reaction and don't hold it against anyone who resorts to a general skepticism toward survey data. But as someone who has worked on surveys and who uses survey data for my own research, I can affirmatively say there is a huge spectrum in quality in surveys (and in how they are reported), and with a little experience, you can recognize the good from the bad pretty quickly.
Of course, everyone is in charge of their own time, and it is entirely valid to spend one's resources on other things besides figuring out who is lying to you with survey junk.
In the UK it is those on the left who are most strongly aligned with Islam.
Yet the UK Labour party had traditional values quite opposite to the values of Islam.
I did write to prominent members of the Labour party, pointing out this anomaly. And of the few replies received, they were all in complete denial.
How curious.
See my article on this matter:
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/does-labour-have-blood-on-its-hands
Respectfully disagree, the Left seem to be bat shit crazy. Maybe it’s because the political right is more guided by traditional social norms and violence is traditionally taboo.
I’m no fan of the Left, but “violence is traditionally taboo” so the right is less violent seems like a hard position to defend? Aren’t the MMA, military, law enforcement, and honor culture all right coded? You’re correct that the right tends to be more guided by traditional social norms, but I’m not entirely sure traditional social norms are less violent.
Maybe the difference is related to organized violence in the right (Army, self defense, border control, ICE, law enforcement) vs. "spontaneous" chaotic or even "grassroots" violence in the left (BLM riots, Antifa, terrorist attacks, guerrillas, looting, gang violence).
Organized violence is always subjected to at least some norms that would enforce accountability (entering a church and opening fire against someone isn't self defense and the attacker will be charged, law enforcement will be dragged to court even for situations where force had to be applied to protect innocents, border control has to be compliant with international agreements like ECHR at least here in Europe).
Chaotic "grassroots" violence is free to do whatever the attacker wants because they tend to believe that the Cause® they defend overwrites any moral limit. That's why they can happily justify looting tvs, the Charlie Kirk assassination, Hamas 7-O, ETA, Al Qaeda, FARC guerrillas, and even drug cartels.
I've described this violence as "spontaneous" despite it isn't like that all, it is also organized (and handsomely funded in many cases) but it appears as not.
But a taboo on chaos is fundamentally different from a taboo on violence. A taboo doesn’t go away because it’s well organized?
We also need to address the KKK, ruby ridge, January 6th, the Oklahoma City bombing, and Islamic terrorism. The implicit claim that disorganized violence is norm free is also not true? Like “left wing” violence is usually anti corporation or against institutions of power, they don’t usually just attack random people. So it’s organized and follows a predictable pattern, right? That’s how we know it’s “left coded” in the first place.
I don’t want us getting off track here though. The claim that “violence is taboo” on the right is the original argument and that’s the claim I’m disagreeing with, not that left or right violence has different methods, targets, goals, or norms. I’ll grant all that, but that’s categorically different from the right having a taboo on violence.
Further reading for people who are interested!
https://betterconflictbulletin.substack.com/p/how-many-people-actually-approve
Cremieux Recueil getting people to think critically about survey results always gets a "like" from me.
I remember from the 2-year stint I spent working in the survey statistics, seeing those nonsense answers. Especially in the age of self-identification of gender, etc., we would see respondents with write-in answers of "Attack Helicopter" or "Batman" for their gender. Higher quality surveys will try to disqualify these respondents or at least filter out the obviously bogus responses. I doubt the mass-produced Gallup/Pew/YouGov style polling does, but I never worked with those kind of firms specifically.
This is a problem that seems to be getting worse as survey response rates plummet and surveys resort to online survey modes. A lot of people are brain dead in front of a screen from being constantly in front of screens.
I appreciate the post and will admit to trying to be “funny” on surveys I took in the past. My main take away is that surveyors need to define the terms that they are using on their surveys very precisely. But even doing that won’t prevent any jokesters. But there are also the small group in a sample that I don’t think are appropriate subjects for a survey about violence. For example (yes a leftist journalist first comes to mind) Taylor Lorenz who voiced out loud the words “understanding” and “joy” after the assassination of Brian Thompson. I think her muddled mind would rationalize around even the most stringent definitions. Hopefully statistics will prevail.
What a bizarre idea to have an applet to delete what you have written.
i am often interrupted while writing. Or my broadband goes slow or cuts out.
The very existence of the applet that you proadly boast about makes me wonder what sort of individual I am dealing with here.