RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 10:06:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Maybe that just means people in the military aren't contributing much money to presidential candidates. That could be an appropriate conclusion. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster quote: The numbers aren't "small in general". They are statistically insignificant. Meaningless. You obviously don't understand what the term "statistically significant" means. It's all right; most people don't. Don't feel too bad. But don't go using terminology you haven't mastered. oh? Educate me oh Enlightened One! FirmKY

Termyn8or -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 12:01:19 PM)
Well, even if we assume the cited site is accurate, it does not give dollar amounts. We don't know if they are talking about $10 or $10,000,000. I think the assertion highly plausible, that those with bullets flying over their heads might question just why we are there, indeed others do. However there still is that one problem. Can we really trust any source of information for anything ? T

FirmhandKY -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 12:21:31 PM)
Termyn8or, It does give dollar amounts. What it doesn't give is the actual number of contributors, as far as I saw. Just because something is "plausible" to someone, because it fits in with how they wish to see the world, doesn't make it accurate or significant. And you can never "fully" trust any source of information. A critical thinker should question everything. But, at some point, you have to at least accept some things based on some sort of criteria. Basically, the articles' author is proposing that the contributions of a minuscule number of service members during a single three month period is somehow a referendum on the war by the members of the armed services, and claims to be able to identify the most favored candidate for all military members as Ron Paul. But we are talking about numbers of military personnel at well below the .01% (that's a "point" zero one percentage) range. That's not significant in any shape, form or fashion. FirmKY

luckydog1 -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 12:50:47 PM)
"Just because something is "plausible" to someone, because it fits in with how they wish to see the world, doesn't make it accurate or significant. " Thats called Confirmation Bias, right? "Statistical significance", is a very specific technicall term. "Statistical insiginifigance" is not a technical term, and is not used as the opposite of "Statistical signifigance", but I guess that was the best LAM could come up with to attack your point.

Lordandmaster -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 1:10:13 PM)
If you're truly prepared to listen, I'd be glad to. A phenomenon is "statistically significant" if the odds that it occurred by chance are dismissably small. What constitutes "dismissably" is debatable, but most of the time statisticians use a 95% or 98% standard (the so-called "confidence interval"). If you want to cut down on false positives, you'll use a higher confidence interval; if you want to cut down on false negatives, you'll use a lower confidence interval. The odds that Ron Paul's lead among military contributors occurred by chance are vanishingly small. In sum, dearest Firmhand, "statistically significant" does not mean "significant enough for Firmhand to take notice." It doesn't mean "significant enough to affect your life." It simply means "significant enough that it could hardly have happened by chance." Edited because handling all the "quote" and "/quote" stuff was complicated. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: quote: The numbers aren't "small in general". They are statistically insignificant. Meaningless. You obviously don't understand what the term "statistically significant" means. It's all right; most people don't. Don't feel too bad. But don't go using terminology you haven't mastered. oh? Educate me oh Enlightened One!

Termyn8or -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 4:33:14 PM)
There are a few things to hash out before determining if this is significant, even if we assume it is true. First of all, how many, by percentage, of the contingent of the poplutation they describe actually make those contributions. Is it 80-90% or 8-9% ? Is this thread about who gets more money, or is it about peoples' attitudes ? T

Lordandmaster -> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL (7/23/2007 5:57:21 PM)
I'm not too sure of how the contingent of the poplutation matters. Could you explain? (For that matter, what does the contingent of the poplutation mean?) Anyway, whatever, as always, people are going to look at numbers and come away with whatever impression they already had before they saw the numbers in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or There are a few things to hash out before determining if this is significant, even if we assume it is true. First of all, how many, by percentage, of the contingent of the poplutation they describe actually make those contributions. Is it 80-90% or 8-9% ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125