Um, Anonymous, just because people who were over 65 favored a white WOMAN over a black man, does NOT mean they're prejudiced. All it tells you is who they voted for.
I find it sad that there is so little understanding of statistics in this country, and what the numbers say and don't say. Usually, you can tell more about the person designing the study and their conclusions, than you can from the data. This is because most surveys are badly worded, and designed to say what the group who designed it want it to say.
The data from very simple surveys can be used in any way one chooses (More people voted for Kennedy than Nixon, therefor most U.S. citizens are Catholic). I can use a simple set of stats to say what I want it to say. Hence, apparently all of those who voted FOR a fairly experienced white woman, or anyone else with actual decades of experience, (not against an extremely inexperienced black man) are none-the-less anti-African-American ... even those who were black... no, they are just confused, brain-washed or "OREOS".
What statements like this say is that the people making them are racialists and arrogant, apparently believing that only they know what's right. One could easily draw the conclusion from the same statistics, that everyone who voted for ANYONE other than Hillary are prejudiced against WOMEN ... including all the women (even black women) ... no wait, they're not prejudiced, just brow-beaten by their husbands. How about they just voted for whoever they voted for and you ASK them why ... again the stats and your logic are very weak.
If you are going to use stats, please try to understand what the numbers are saying and what they are NOT saying. And yes, I was a research scientist and spent a decade designing studies that tried very hard to eliminate as much bias as possible, from the statistical data collected.
By the way, given that you used the last presidential election process as an example, I thought I might point out the fact that a younger man won, despite his near total lack of governmental experience (when compared to his elder opponent), PROVES that most of the citizens of the U.S. are prejudiced against OLD people! Of course this means a lot of old people are prejudiced against old people.
There are three kinds of people in the world who you can't trust, Liars, Damned Liars, and STATISTICIANS! (Lawyers and Politicians come under one of the first two categories).
These are my three groups of people not to be trusted:
Any worldwide politician or ruler,
Any nationality of police,
...and anyone advertising a competition held by ITV
Is it acceptable to not be fond of the elderly?
← View full post
Um, Anonymous, just because people who were over 65 favored a white WOMAN over a black man, does NOT mean they're prejudiced. All it tells you is who they voted for.
I find it sad that there is so little understanding of statistics in this country, and what the numbers say and don't say. Usually, you can tell more about the person designing the study and their conclusions, than you can from the data. This is because most surveys are badly worded, and designed to say what the group who designed it want it to say.
The data from very simple surveys can be used in any way one chooses (More people voted for Kennedy than Nixon, therefor most U.S. citizens are Catholic). I can use a simple set of stats to say what I want it to say. Hence, apparently all of those who voted FOR a fairly experienced white woman, or anyone else with actual decades of experience, (not against an extremely inexperienced black man) are none-the-less anti-African-American ... even those who were black... no, they are just confused, brain-washed or "OREOS".
What statements like this say is that the people making them are racialists and arrogant, apparently believing that only they know what's right. One could easily draw the conclusion from the same statistics, that everyone who voted for ANYONE other than Hillary are prejudiced against WOMEN ... including all the women (even black women) ... no wait, they're not prejudiced, just brow-beaten by their husbands. How about they just voted for whoever they voted for and you ASK them why ... again the stats and your logic are very weak.
If you are going to use stats, please try to understand what the numbers are saying and what they are NOT saying. And yes, I was a research scientist and spent a decade designing studies that tried very hard to eliminate as much bias as possible, from the statistical data collected.
By the way, given that you used the last presidential election process as an example, I thought I might point out the fact that a younger man won, despite his near total lack of governmental experience (when compared to his elder opponent), PROVES that most of the citizens of the U.S. are prejudiced against OLD people! Of course this means a lot of old people are prejudiced against old people.
There are three kinds of people in the world who you can't trust, Liars, Damned Liars, and STATISTICIANS! (Lawyers and Politicians come under one of the first two categories).
--
iranianlionheart
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
These are my three groups of people not to be trusted:
Any worldwide politician or ruler,
Any nationality of police,
...and anyone advertising a competition held by ITV