Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Time to make America great again, starting with the supreme court.

Trump has much bigger priorities, like downballot Florida races.

[RedKing]

The M-DFLP actually has majorities and control of the governors house half the time.

Well yes. They are the Democrats.

#SquidVotesMatter

My concern with that is then we'd just become a tool of Big Cephalopod.

Bones are overrated anyway.

No, I mean BIG Cephalopod.

All is going according to my personal likes, and I have NO complaints about who we have as nominees.

So you're the one we have to blame for this? I think the vampire squid have their initial test subject....

[Max™]

Uplifted Squid, Orbital Colonies, and Out of Context Events?

Sounds like the plot of Manifold: Time to me.

Malenfant 2016: Fuck those other bastards!

[mainiac]

I like this graph.  I can look at it and see whatever strikes my fancy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It means the Clinton Foundation finally got some Bengali orphan slaves capable of doing maintenance on the Campaign Doomcastle's mind-control ray.

Random Number God preserve us. Or not.

[Reelya]

Data like that graph is hard to interpret, because there's a chicken-and-egg thing to consider. Did they find Clinton unfavorable because they preferred Sanders, or did people who already had more unfavorable views of Clinton prefer Sanders? Probably a little bit of both, and it would be on an individual level.

e.g. people who say they "prefer beer to wine" are more likely to have "unfavorable views of wine" than wine drinkers do. But that's not evidence that drinking beer made them unfavorable to wine. And if you said to them "sorry you can drink beer anymore" they might well say "well I guess wine's not that bad after all compared to <shitty drink>". So Clinton's favorability rose with Sanders supporters once she was the only Democrat, mainly because she's not trump.

There was some research done a while ago about how people interact with multiple-option choices. If you have "choice A" and "choice B" people pick A or B a certain percentage of the time. However, if you throw in a "Choice C" that's clearly inferior to the other choices, and therefore gets picked 0% of the time, this can in fact change how often A or B get chosen. If "choice C" resembles an inferior version of "choice A" it boosts the selection rate for A, whereas if it resembles an inferior version of "choice B", the mere presence of "choice C" boosts the selection rate for B. But remember, people never pick Choice C in this research. It's just easier to identify value when you have examples that are similar rather than different.

[Starver]

Beer before wine, you'll be fine.
Wine before beer, sick for a year..

[mainiac]

or did people who already had more unfavorable views of Clinton prefer Sanders?

There are polls over a body of time.  It would be reasonable to attribute some of the changes to different people being Sanders supports over time different time frames but there are some time frames where things would be pretty steady.  Between January and June the race was pretty static.

[Reelya]

or did people who already had more unfavorable views of Clinton prefer Sanders?

There are polls over a body of time.  It would be reasonable to attribute some of the changes to different people being Sanders supports over time different time frames but there are some time frames where things would be pretty steady.  Between January and June the race was pretty static.

See the research I cited (edit) in the last post. It's mentioned in this TED talk, the whole talk is interesting, but the stuff on multiple-choice stuff is after 11 minutes
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions

e.g. one of the research examples was two guys faces and they asked girls which one was the best looking (50/50) then they added a third face which was an "uglified" version of one guy or the other. This had the paradoxical effect of making women strongly favor whichever guy most resembled "uglified dude" - because he looked better in comparison to the ugly version, and paradoxically this also affected women's perception of him relative to the other guy. And this has been repeated in a number of unrelated contexts, often ones that involve working out how much money something is worth to pay for. Adding a "choice C" that's an inferior or over-priced version of one of the choices skews decisions towards the choice it most closely resembles, even though the choice C is selected 0% of the time. And skews things a lot not just a little: in one example, 2/3rds of people picked the cheap option rather than an expensive option, but after adding a meaningless third choice (which 0% of people select), 84% of people selected the expensive option. So the mere presence of a "useless" third choice can in fact turn a decision completely on it's head.

Extra choices, even if they're never picked can changes the outcome, so as people drop out of the primaries on both sides, everyone's perception of the remaining candidates can change in non-linear ways. It's not just "people who favored candidate X will switch to either candidate Y or candidate Z", people who already favored Y or favored Z can shift after X is no longer a choice (even though they never liked X in the first place). The problem is that humans aren't as rational as we like to think - things that clearly should not factor into certain decisions, such as choosing between X number of choices, clearly have a big impact.

[misko27]

I'm concerned. What can Trump do that would cause voters to lose confidence? I'm worried Clinton isn't up to the task of taming Trump on national television. That's not a mark against her personally: I think it would be a daunting task for anyone. But if Trump goes in and doesn't insult someone's dead relatives, it's a win for him. Clinton's got to be on her game, Trump could virtually phone it in. In fact the odds of that aren't too bad: Trump IS known for making a mess of something in the bag, but I hope she is up to it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Despite people thinking they've got him pinned down now, I'm convinced Trump is still the wild card. He's much smarter than the popular narrative lets on, about all of this.

[mainiac]

Reelya, I dont really see how your comparison applies.  I was talking about a period when people were growing less favorable to Clinton while your comparison is about how they might inflate their opinion of someone.

[Reelya]

The research is about how choices are rated relative to each other. The point is that the boosted one is boosted both compared to the shitty "false choice" but also to the other valid choice.

e.g. if you had Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, and people perceived O'Malley as more similar to Clinton, then the mere presence of that choice would change peoples relative perceptions of the other two choices, even if they never considered O'Malley as someone they'd vote for. And when people have made their mind up, they tend to rationalize their likes and dislikes, which changes their relative perceptions.

[mainiac]

Yes and evidence shows that conducting random site inspections of ground water at suburban tampa homes will knock a couple of (statistically significant) percentage points points off the sale price of the homes with good water.  Humans are extremely weird with their valuations.  I just dont see what your specific examples have to do with the graph.

[smjjames]

I'm concerned. What can Trump do that would cause voters to lose confidence? I'm worried Clinton isn't up to the task of taming Trump on national television. That's not a mark against her personally: I think it would be a daunting task for anyone. But if Trump goes in and doesn't insult someone's dead relatives, it's a win for him. Clinton's got to be on her game, Trump could virtually phone it in. In fact the odds of that aren't too bad: Trump IS known for making a mess of something in the bag, but I hope she is up to it.

It's due to the level of expectations, Trump has set the bar so low that it would be all too easy to exceed it and Clinton already has a pretty high bar. Pretty sure she is up to the task as she has so far mostly resisted in going to his level of insultingage.