At this point do you trust the political polls ANY POLLS?

[Felya]

How do you know he isn't?

Because BLM will kill us all and Corona is a hoax... we literally have people posting, screaming about civil war, while 150000 are dead in 6 months of a virus.

[Breccia]

Two things.

One, using a comedy section to talk about political polls done by paid professionals is like saying nuclear power is bad because you caught one episode of The Simpsons.

Two:

I don't trust polls because people doing them, either are bias or lie.

You made this thread a poll, dude. By your own admission, you're biased or a liar. Pick one. Don't care.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Two things.

One, using a comedy section to talk about political polls done by paid professionals is like saying nuclear power is bad because you caught one episode of The Simpsons.

Two:

You made this thread a poll, dude. By your own admission, you're biased or a liar. Pick one. Don't care.

Well this poll isn't official, it isn't going to be accredited or used in any official capacity. As far as my bias, sure I have a bias, but that doesn't have anything to do with this poll. I am a liar too, but again non of that has anything to do with the poll. It's just to facilitate discussion of peoples trust in polls.

[Machismo]

The guy saying he doesn't like polls... has posted literally hundreds of polls.

- - - Updated - - -

At this point do you trust the polls ANY POLLS if not why not?

My answer is fuck and NO, most of these political pundits and pollsters don't know shit, at best they all or most demonstrate that this is not fucking science, at least not in it's purest form. This is a at best a template and a thermometer very much relative to where you stick it.

Most people will fucking LIE if asked point blank, the reason, because even despite what peoples true intentions are, most people especially in general have a fear about what it is and why it is that are asked a question and of course what is being expected.

It isn't because people are especially evil however in general we are inherently, however we simply are generally dishonest, because the world we live in doesn't make most people feel safe to say what they really think.


I put depends as an option and a request to give a source, yes 538 even 538, has IMO and I've gotten hell for this, has shit the bed big time in 2016, I am not not just them are fooling themselves.

I don't think it's on purpose, however their as reliable as Jimmy Kimmels asking random people on the street about if they has sex last night. Most people will answer with what they think others expect of them.

Since you made a poll, and you said you don't trust polls. This is you admitting to being completely full of shit. Mind you, I proved that a very long time ago, but at least we have more recent evidence to show that nothing you say need ever be taken seriously.

[lockedout]

How do you know he isn't?

He doesn't even know where he is.

[Rozz]

Debate your answers, but do not enter just to attack each other.

[Felya]

Funny enough, I think if people making the most common mistake about polls, united with people who play the lotto expecting to win... they would null each other... like a shape fitting perfectly inside a hole of the same shape... the two misconceptions counter each other perfectly.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Funny enough, I think if people making the most common mistake about polls, united with people who play the lotto expecting to win... they would null each other... like a shape fitting perfectly inside a hole of the same shape... the two misconceptions counter each other perfectly.

Well what misconception is that, Polls are never accurate as nobody is going to win the lottery. I say that because with the odds of winning the lottery it's just as well as saying there is no chance of winning.

Where as polls might be accurate, but they can also be misinterpreted, misapplied, and of course manipulated. The question is to whether they are reliable, anyone getting upset about questioning that isn't coming from a place of logic or reason.

[Felya]

Well what misconception is that, Polls are never accurate as nobody is going to win the lottery. I say that because with the odds of winning the lottery it's just as well as saying there is no chance of winning.

Where as polls might be accurate, but they can also be misinterpreted, misapplied, and of course manipulated. The question is to whether they are reliable, anyone getting upset about questioning that isn't coming from a place of logic or reason.

Hillary has more than 99% chance to win, means her losing was a mistake of the polls.
I used my lucky number and still couldn’t beat less than 1% odds, means the number isn’t lucky.

See... they are perfectly parallel...

Edit:

To clarify...

No, it’s that Trump specifically winning was that unlikely.
No, it’s that any number winning was that unlikely.

It’s an inverse...

[Doctor Amadeus]

Hillary has more than 99% chance to win, means her losing was a mistake of the polls.
I used my lucky number and still couldn’t beat less than 1% odds, means the number isn’t lucky.

See... they are perfectly parallel...

Hahaha No. Because a chance is a chance, the number tied to it gives that weight as to how substantial, 1% is a hell of a lot lower than 99%. And over the course of other polls and other races, based on averages, I would say polls have become pretty unreliable as certain.


1% Chance is certain you will not win.

[Felya]

Hahaha No. Because a chance is a chance, the number tied to it gives that weight as to how substantial, 1% is a hell of a lot lower than 99%. And over the course of other polls and other races, based on averages, I would say polls have become pretty unreliable as certain.

1% Chance is certain you will not win.

How about this... would you drink something, that had a 1% chance to kill you? How many times would you drink it?

[Doctor Amadeus]

How about this... would you drink something, that had a 1% chance to kill you?

Again the number affixed to the percentage gives the chance a value, 1%, what am I drinking to? Is this the Vaccine for Corona, is there a 1% Chance it will kill me?

If so I am not going to plan my funeral. Because the odds are the same as nil in the long shoot, not absolutely zero, but then again lets not get into that because if we are going to go strictly by numbers and what not there is no such thing as 0.



Now if you said, yeah Drink this it will protect you from any kind of disease like Corona or anything else and that chance is 99% if it doesn't kill me which is 50/50, those numbers of substantial meaning.


You're statement is people thinking they are going to win the lottery is the same as the group that question polls and their meaning, especially when certain percentages are assigned based on data points. That isn't really the same thing at all, especially when I believe you are referring to are the polls of 2016/18. Which I would say were pretty wildly off.

[Felya]

Again the number affixed to the percentage gives the chance a value, 1%, what am I drinking to? Is this the Vaccine for Corona, is there a 1% Chance it will kill me?

Why does it mater the reason you are drinking? It’s 1%... the odds don’t change...

Edit: “This single number is special, because it’s my birthday” is an inverse of “the overwhelming whole is special, because the circumstances dictate it”...

[Doctor Amadeus]

Why does it mater the reason you are drinking? It’s 1%... the odds don’t change...

Edit: “This single number is special, because it’s my birthday” is an inverse of “the overwhelming whole is special, because the circumstances dictate it”...

1% that i am going to die as opposed to 99%, I think you need to pause and reread that.


As for your birthday, I am sure you are kidding, because numbers as a percentage that have significant as they have value based on hopefully reliable data, aren't the same as some random dumb number that no variable value other than a number can be ascribed.


I think Deal or No Deal is a perfect example when stupid people go on the show and say my lucky Number is so and So, which really means nothing because the numbers that are important are those that have to do with the board and right and left brackets being revealed during the game.

Odds and Chance.

Odds are Odds, Chance is tied to the value of the number based on the table of outcomes set on pattern.


Another example, a Quarter has 50/50 chance 50% chance of always being either heads or tales, based on no other information.

HOWEVER that doesn't mean that you can't flip the coin 100 time and it comes up heads. What it does say based on multiple variations over time that if you flip the coin 100 times and it comes up heads, the odds are greater eventually the next 100 times it going to be tails.

The CHANCE after a quarter is flipped 100 times that it's going to be heads again is always going to be lower based on the number of times it's already been flipped, how much depends on that variable, lets call that variable X



X = The amount of times said quarter has been flipped, now we may never know when the coin started flipping to begin with, but what we can determine is that if the over all average is 50% heads and 50% tails, then we can have a good idea even if we don't know.


If we do know the value of X then we for sure do know.


The problem is Chance is what we don't know.


1/99 1% = Odds 99%= Chance


Odds are predictable, Chance is calculated, but it's done so only with as much information about ALL the Variables, X,Y and Maybe Z.



Yes I understand how this works, going back to your question though mathematically, 1/99 is the same as just about zero.

[Kaleredar]

Hopefully regardless to polls, I hope people get off their asses and vote, and don't get comfortable. Because I would love nothing more than for polls to be right.

- - - Updated - - -



I can do that, I am a grown up and not a robot, so I can think for my self and make decisions based on my authority, not yours ow someone else supposed. You can save your regurgitate script shit, about logical fallacy and what not in lieu of actually speaking like a real human being or someone of any authenticity.



This is you thinking out loud, maybe confine this shit to yourself and maybe less projecting of others.

Okay so you don't have an answer to how often sources can't be trusted, what those biases are, what the variables are, how often those things might be, or what the results in question are?

I don't know the same place you got your copy pasta and instant win arguments for conversations either out of context or completely inappropriate because maybe you fail to critically think for yourself out of some other fear you have. Either way it would be nice if you could stick to the fucking thread, not project and maybe worry less about what I or anyone else should be doing and either speak for yourself.

Or if you have nothing to contribute don't

Okay so where is any of the proof or evidence for anything you're saying?

You've been asked to produce it... repeatedly... and you've ignored it... repeatedly.

So I'm assuming the proof or evidence for your argument doesn't exist, if you can't produce it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Okay so you don't have an answer to how often sources can't be trusted, what those biases are, what the variables are, how often those things might be, or what the results in question are?

Okay so where is any of the proof or evidence for anything you're saying?

You've been asked to produce it... repeatedly... and you've ignored it... repeatedly.

So I'm assuming the proof or evidence for your argument doesn't exist, if you can't produce it.

No I am not going to provide pie charts and copy pasta to prove to you water is wet.

[PACOX]

Most voters are reactionary. Polls are going as the moment they are taken with a quick expiration date.

So I believe in polls but not their longevity.

[Felya]

1% that i am going to die as opposed to 99%, I think you need to pause and reread that.

Yes, and I’m asking why you needed to add qualifiers, like if it’s a cure for anything? Odds don’t change, you are expressing value of the result. That’s bias... the thing that makes people think that polls predicting 99% victory, hitting 1%, is bias combined with misunderstanding hindsight.

As for your birthday, I am sure you are kidding, because numbers as a percentage that have significant as they have value based on hopefully reliable data, aren't the same as some random dumb number that no variable value other than a number can ascribed.

I’m not... people who bet on birthdays, over value that number... you are overvaluing the whole... that’s why they are parallel inverses...

I think Deal or No Deal is a perfect example when stupid people go on the show and say my lucky Number is so and So, which really means nothing because the numbers that are important are those that have to do with the board and right and left brackets being revealed during the game.

Yes, and you think if they hit correctly on the birthday number, them having a less than 1% chance to win, is wrong?

Odds are Odds, Chance is tied to the value of the number based on the table of outcomes set on pattern.

You are clearly making things up as you go along...

Another example, a Quarter has 50/50 chance 50% chance of always being either heads or tales, based on no other information.

50/50 = 1... all you did is say your chance twice... this is so reactionary, it’s silly... if it’s 10% than the chance is 1/10? How about if your chance is 50%, but the chance to win is 50/25/25? We are discovering math here... lol

HOWEVER that doesn't mean that you can't flip the coin 100 time and it comes up heads. What it does say based on multiple variations over time that if you flip the coin 100 times and it comes up heads, the odds are greater eventually the next 100 times it going to be tails.

And this:

The CHANCE after a quarter is flipped 100 times that it's going to be heads again is always going to be lower, how much depends on a variable lets call that variable X

Are horrible misunderstanding of statistics, odds or chances... no... if you flip a coin 100 times, the chance the 101 coin flip will be heads, is the same as the first... regardless off the preceding result.

X = The amount of times said quarter has been flipped, now we may never know when the coin started flipping to begin with, but what we can determine is that if the over all average is 50% heads and 50% tails, then we can have a good idea even if we don't know.

Nope... it’s the same as the first... the amount of times it was flipped, means nothing for what the next flip will be. We know it’s 50/50 because it’s two options, weighted equally...

If we do know the value of X then we for sure do know.

No... we don’t know for “sure” we know the likelihood... for sure, is 100%... you will never flip a coin into a scenario, where you know the outcome of the next flip for “sure“.

Odds are predictable, Chance is calculated, but it's done so only with as much information about ALL the Variables, X,Y and Maybe Z.

None of this is true... you are inventing a distinction. What is the source for this?

Yes I understand how this works, going back to your question though mathematically, 1/99 is the same as just about zero.

No........ where are you getting this from? What you just said, is the equivalent of saying, there are infinite numbers that are the same as about 0... I need a source for this.

Edit: I think I figured it out... you are arbitrarily applying a technical meaning to one and colloquial one to the other. I’ll let you guess which is bias...

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes, and I’m asking why you needed to add qualifiers, like if it’s a cure for anything? Odds don’t change, you are expressing value of the result. That’s bias... the thing that makes people think that polls predicting 99% victory, hitting 1%, is bias combined with misunderstanding hindsight.

Well the qualifiers like the numbers to percentages gives them value, that matters, like words and definitions and that sort of thing, kind of helps bring order to noise.

I’m not... people who bet on birthdays, over value that number... you are overvaluing the whole... that’s why they are parallel inverses...

But, I am not, you said, that 1% and 99% are the same they aren't those values are the opposite in terms of odds for whatever desired result.

Yes, and you think if they hit correctly on the birthday number, them having a less than 1% chance to win, is wrong?

Confused here on this part. I am saying 1% odds of a desired result is the same as zero. The odds for the lottery are typically a lot lower

You are clearly making things up as you go along...

That's how math works, and how we calculate things, estimating odds vs chance, and squaring that with variables. The thing is we almost never know all the variables. Say for example, how many times a coin is flipped = X, How a coin is flipped the distance each time its flipped = Y, Hell even the air in the room could = Z

However the fact is based on the more we know, we can affix that value to outcome. My point is if based on the right tables my Chance is 1% for sure then again we are talking like Zero.

Chance is a variable likely unknown. where say Luck is just a stupid uneducated guess based on nothing like a birthday.

50/50 = 1... all you did is say your chance twice... this is so reactionary, it’s silly... if it’s 10% than the chance is 1/10? How about if your chance is 50%, but the chance to win is 50/25/25? We are discovering math here... lol

Well here we are talking about odds, 50/50 is another way of saying Even, however in that value there are still variables depending on what you affix that value to.

I mean you are asking some more complicated and good questions in the rest here, and the answer to it is I don't know, most things depends on variables, and in life honestly that isn't always within our ability to calculate. We KNOW that.

However based on what we DO KNOW and a reliable pattern or path, we can make logical estimates, and if the sources are reliable and the math is sound, 50% is good, it's obviously better than 25%, and in life when it comes to real numbers like that typically maybe you might find like in Vegas playing poker or black jack or something, meh!

But over all numbers in this way are kind of a pain in the ass, because how one operates on them depends on the things I mentioned. HOWEVER when you say 1% Chance.

As I said if the desired effect isn't to fucking die, and you have a 1% Chance not to. You better start planning a Funeral. If you your chances are 99% or even 90% that is extremely fucking HIGH YOU'LL LIVE!

Especially depending on what you are talking about, if you lost with a 99% chance of winning, well that CAN happen, but you better be checking the math, just as if it happens again, then it's time to investigate deeper.


I mean it could simply bee, that chance and some variable unaccounted for just came up, IT DOES happen, but not without reason and scientific logic too it.

Are horrible misunderstanding of statistics, odds or chances... no... if you flip a coin 100 times, the chance the 101 coin flip will be heads, is the same as the first... regardless off the preceding result.

Not true, variables can and often do come into play, the reason for instance, We do trial and testing and what not for almost anything is because we try to mimic conditions that we can control for every element of what can or does happen.

Flipping the coin is pretty simple, but it doesn't have to be. Life is that thing that can be unexpected, and when something does happen many times you have to start over, unless you find out what you missed.

Nope... it’s the same as the first... the amount of times it was flipped, means nothing for what the next flip will be. We know it’s 50/50 because it’s two options, weighted equally...

Right, I am not saying it isn't still 50/50 generally, what I am saying is that over all and if there are other variables, it does, it's 50/50 but if you flipped it 100 times and it came up tails 100 times in a row, then in that moment it is no longer 50/50 the variable changes it.

In this case that variable and is time = previous rotations.

No... we don’t know for “sure” we know the likelihood... for sure, is 100%... you will never flip a coin into a scenario, where you know the outcome of the next flip for “sure“.

Again if we "Know" that is an important distinction, because if we don't know, well then we don't know, and we often times never know especially 100%, seriously I think you grasp.

Which is why as I said words like numbers make a difference, if you say something is 99% OF a desired outcome and that didn't happen, then guess what, something YOU didn't know happened.

Which is FINE and how percentages work, but understand patterns are important, and if your 99%, say strikes out again, or even 90% that value is going to go down, and eventually isn't going to mean anything unless you find out specifically why, and if your math is already falling apart your credibility is going with it.

None of this is true... you are inventing a distinction. What is the source for this?

Nope, it's pretty simple, Odds and Chance aren't the same thing, people often see Chance as Luck but it's not. Chance is a fixed thing relative to Odds, based on informed calculations.

Luck is simply dumb luck, like a magic birthday, by itself it has NO significance other than what you give it FOR YOU

No........ where are you getting this from? What you just said, is the equivalent of saying, there are infinite numbers that are the same as about 0... I need a source for this.

Its basic relativity in the absolute form based on everything we "KNOW" use that loosely then 1/99 is better than zero. But since that isn't MY VIEW YES BIAS here, NO, I would say objectively it's not.

OBVIOUSLY I could be wrong. My Argument is one of substance. But honestly this is where science is limited. Going by the rules 1 is significant thus better than 0.



So if you have a 1% of hitting the lottery which would be much higher than any I've seen and you want to go window shopping before they call numbers, by all means.

[Kaleredar]

No I am not going to provide pie charts and copy pasta to prove to you water is wet.

...So that's a no on proof?


Then why do you believe the things you believe, if you have no reason to quantify why you believe it?

...Especially when that belief dissuades you from from believing things that have been quantified?


Hmmm... maybe that explains it. "I have no foundation for the things I believe, but I believe I am more right than those that have foundations for the things they believe because those foundations can't be trusted. Because that's what I believe."