Do you think this guy was ridiculous?

[Mamasanma]

I met a man on here who said he knows how the US thinks based on the books he read. He was from new jersey.

[genericname85]

well depends on what books he read. if it was national social scientific studies about statistical analysis of certain views, then he'd be right to claim that he knows.

[Mamasanma]

That's still a generalisation. The US has 350 million people.

[genericname85]

how else would you make correct statements about what a population generally thinks? you talk about what's generally true by generalization.

[Mamasanma]

You can't know that. There's no answer. That's common sense. Unless you ask the whole country.

[Mamasanma]

Otherwise you are ignorant

[genericname85]

we can know that and we actually do that by means of conducting representative large scale social suveys. we can not only quantitatively determine how common or uncommon certain views or opinions are in a given population of people. we can also then stratify the frequency of certain views and opinons by variables like gender, ethnicity, income groups and educational level and even figure out which factors influence the probability of a person having a certain view by multivariate regression methods. so if he read one of the publications around exactly these topics, he could actually have a prety solid idea about these things.

[Mamasanma]

There is no survey or research which accounts 350 or so millions Americans. They would ask few millions at most, and that's not enough

[genericname85]

asking every single person is by no means necessary at all. what is a necessary quality is the concept of representativeness.

the concept of representativeness means that surveying or measuring a smaller group of people or things can accurately represent a way bigger sample of people or things. this goes in general, not just for social science. it's quantitative sampling which is ncessary, cause in many sciences it's simply imposible to count "each individual thing". you think a chemist counts each individual atom in his solution to know exactly how many pieces of one molecule are in a huge tank of chemicals?

in social science, we reach representativeness in a nutshell by reaching a certain sample size with an appropriate random selection method.

if you wanna know more about how representativeness is reached, here's a good summary of it for you forscenter.ch/.../...18_final_sub_v03_combined.pdf

so then when your social survey has reached representativeness and passes the peer review process, then simply put: there litterally is no beter method to "know what the fuck you're talking about" than that in this world.

and if he's informed in that way, he knows his shit. but I don't know if he is or not.

[Mamasanma]

There is still a representation bias involved, they literally discuss the limitations of such research

[genericname85]

yes and these biases are openly declared and the probability has to be sufficiently high. please don't understand this as condescending but just going "hurr durr maybe it's still wrong" doesn't track here. you'd at least have to put equal ammount of work to invalidate the results of such scientific results.

[genericname85]

here's the ting. just cause you don't personally understand how and why this works doesn't mean that it's wrong.

[Mamasanma]

You can't avoid bias though. If so, explain how

[Mamasanma]

Have there been any studies done on how people view men and women in relation to sex with minors?

[Mamasanma]

Lol I remember now how threw a tantrum because you couldn't prove who teenagers are sexually attracted to, you just kept showing me studies about dating partners and romantic attraction and then muted me because you couldn't win the argument with your studies lol.

I wonder what you will come up with now

[genericname85]

no, i've explained enough to you. you're not paying me to teach you a bachelors level social science or statistics class. if you were paying me an appropriate salary, i might think about it. sufficed to say: we know how to deal with biases. they are part of it and not just ignored. the fact that certain biases exist doesn't invalidate the results at all.

and the fact that you're still trying to poke holes into what i'm saying instead of acknowledging the fact that we can actually know these things means that you just don't want this to be a thing, cause you prefer feeling right over being right about stuff. because if you actually gave a shit about understanding, you could have read the source that i posted to you, which actually eplains that too.

so educate yourself. i'm not gonna do it for you for free.

[genericname85]

i didn't throw a tantrum. i pointed you to the science and you ignored it. guess i'm a fool for trying to explain it to you, despite knowing you'll probably just ignore it again. but i just believe that people don't wanna be ignorant. i believe in the good in people. you're more than welcome top proof me wrong on that again.

[genericname85]

cause i can admit when i'm wrong. and i genuinely think i could be wrong about you trying to actually understand and know shit.

[Mamasanma]

So go on then, show me results on teenagers sexual attraction Mr Scientist.

[genericname85]

i already did that. but you chose to be ignorant. are you doing it again now? jeez. guess i was wrong about you actually wanting to know and underwstand stuff. well hope you'll be happy with your ignorance at least.

[genericname85]

gotta admit defeat when it happens. it's hopeless...

[Mamasanma]

You shown me studies on romantic attraction love

[genericname85]

you've now changed the topic, cause you realized you're hopelessly underqualified to have a conversation on eye level with me in this topic and all you did this entire conversation is trying to find the tiniest spec of shit you can throw at me in a desparate attemt at defending your ego. which is a very unneccesary fight to fight if you can just realize that i went through a certain education to know my shit. you're probably an expert on something that i don't know shit about but i just happen to know more than you in this particular topic. nothing bad for you about it.

not everyones ego is strong enough to admit when they know less than someone else. maybe you'll get there some day. maybe we'll have a discussion some day where i know less than you do. i sincerely hope that happens one day, so i can show you how to have a conversation when you know less than the other person.

[genericname85]

gonna mute this now, cause there's really nothing else to say here. see you in another question maybe.

[Mamasanma]

Lol triggered again. I think I shown you enough

[exitseven]

He is ridiculous. The US has so many different viewpoints that nobody can figure it out.

[Mamasanma]

That's what I thought
There are like 350 million people

[exitseven]

at least.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Mamasanma]

I didn't give it to you

[PointTaken]

That's an odd way to know. If he's reading Harry Potter, that would really tell him how how the US works.

[Jennz6]

I don’t know what books he reads

[Anonymous]

Don't take much notice of Americans.

[Mansearching]

Don't lump us all together. Just because he says he knows. Doesn't mean he does. I don't know what ev1 else thinks. Nor do i want to.

[spartan55]

Sure

[htmndg183]

Yes.

[dinojames22]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣