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

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to... ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE RON PAUL

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 10:06:44 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 12:01:19 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

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

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 12:21:31 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 7/23/2007 12:26:41 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 12:50:47 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

"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.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 1:10:13 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

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!

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/23/2007 1:11:29 PM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 4:33:14 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: MOST service folks political contributions go to...... - 7/23/2007 5:57:21 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

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% ?

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 27