I’d note that the numbers in here for “actual” are also a bit suspect for some categories.
For example the percentage bisexual - a study showed about 10% of american men and 20% of american women have had bisexual attractions - which would indicate a real number being somewhere in the 15% realm.
It can be misleading if the results are presented like total for any person who had bisexual attraction, like I would say this does.
Or something much closer to that, than to ‘has ever experienced some kind of non hetero attraction or had a consensual non hetero encounter’.
I do agree that it would be useful to explain the methodology a bit more in depth, they do say:
Real proportions were taken from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, YouGov’s internal poll results, and the results of other well-established polling firms. Most estimates were collected within the past three years; the oldest is from 2009. Because the real estimates presented cover a range of time periods, they may differ from actual population sizes at the time our survey was conducted.
So… yeah, you’d have to untangle all of that, all of those metholdogies, to know exactly what they are saying, exactly what they mean by various terms.
So… yeah, you’d have to untangle all of that, all of those metholdogies, to know exactly what they are saying, exactly what they mean by various terms.
Yup, which just makes it a pretty bad graphic for the things that aren’t hard numbers, like income.
For what its worth I’m not the one who downvoted you.
But I mean… it covers a broad range of topics, and doesn’t go into particular detail on any of them.
The point is to literally illustrate their general claim that Americans overestimate the predominance of many minority groups, and underestimate the predominance of majority groups.
It successfully achieves that.
If you wanted to go into more detail and focus into specific sub categories, that’d be a great idea!
… I honestly wouldn’t call this deceptive, at least not intentionally.
And… I’m a bi econometrician.
Its very true that the issue you bring up is a serious issue, that colloquial definitions are vague and amorphous and change based on many factors and it would be nice if they could be more precise and specific.
But… they don’t explicitly define their methodological definition.
This is basically a fluffy blog post from a polling firm, not a published study.
That’s not the same thing as being intentionally misleading.
Its being vague. Which isn’t great.
But if you look at this and … don’t realize that they are just being vague and not precisely defining terms…
… and you just declare that your methodological definition is just, the correct one… and then are displeased that they don’t say which def. they’re using…
… that’s a you problem, imo.
You can just look at this and say, oh, this interesting, though a bit vague, I wonder if other studies/polls are more explicit, have precise definitions?
I dunno.
Do you maybe wanna provide statistics that you think are more accurate?
… I honestly wouldn’t call this deceptive, at least not intentionally.
…
This is basically a fluffy blog post from a polling firm, not a published study.
The intention is to create a wide gap between “actual” and “perception”. I would call that intentionally deceptive. Its marketing.
But if you look at this and … don’t realize that they are just being vague and not precisely defining terms…
So… probably most people then.
… and you just declare that your methodological definition is just, the correct one… and then are displeased that they don’t say which def. they’re using…
Not remotely what I said, so please don’t put words in my mouth.
You can just look at this and say, oh, this interesting, though a bit vague, I wonder if other studies/polls are more explicit, have precise definitions?
I think you’re missing the problem here. I recognize these numbers as suspect due to the vagueness. You recognize these numbers as suspect due to their vagueness. Many people, even in this post, did not.
Do you maybe wanna provide statistics that you think are more accurate?
Even if all you do is source from GSS, it hasn’t been 4% since the early 90’s, and has more than tripled since then - and thats self-identifying.
I’m not pointing this out to say “Oh look, there are more bisexuals than they claim!”, but “This is a shitty infographic, do not trust these numbers as being remotely realistic or accurate”.
I’m not sure why you think it would be 15%. You would need to account for cultural factors such as homophobic masculine culture likely making men lie. Especially with marginalized groups you would expect the true number to be higher than what any survey would say because the oppression of marginalized identities means fewer respondents would self identify. The real number is likely more than 20%.
I think its higher as well for the same reasons, just noting that even a single self-reported survey resulted in a number several times the “actual” shown here.
I’d note that the numbers in here for “actual” are also a bit suspect for some categories.
For example the percentage bisexual - a study showed about 10% of american men and 20% of american women have had bisexual attractions - which would indicate a real number being somewhere in the 15% realm.
It can be misleading if the results are presented like total for any person who had bisexual attraction, like I would say this does.
They’re probably going with ‘openly identify as’.
Or something much closer to that, than to ‘has ever experienced some kind of non hetero attraction or had a consensual non hetero encounter’.
I do agree that it would be useful to explain the methodology a bit more in depth, they do say:
So… yeah, you’d have to untangle all of that, all of those metholdogies, to know exactly what they are saying, exactly what they mean by various terms.
Yup, which just makes it a pretty bad graphic for the things that aren’t hard numbers, like income.
For what its worth I’m not the one who downvoted you.
But I mean… it covers a broad range of topics, and doesn’t go into particular detail on any of them.
The point is to literally illustrate their general claim that Americans overestimate the predominance of many minority groups, and underestimate the predominance of majority groups.
It successfully achieves that.
If you wanted to go into more detail and focus into specific sub categories, that’d be a great idea!
But… they just didn’t do that.
By being deceptive on a number of categories, which is the issue I have with this graphic.
It successfully presents a larger gap than reality, and further makes minority groups more of a minority. Which to me creates a whole new problem.
I don’t particulary care about downvotes BTW so dont worry about it.
… I honestly wouldn’t call this deceptive, at least not intentionally.
And… I’m a bi econometrician.
Its very true that the issue you bring up is a serious issue, that colloquial definitions are vague and amorphous and change based on many factors and it would be nice if they could be more precise and specific.
But… they don’t explicitly define their methodological definition.
This is basically a fluffy blog post from a polling firm, not a published study.
That’s not the same thing as being intentionally misleading.
Its being vague. Which isn’t great.
But if you look at this and … don’t realize that they are just being vague and not precisely defining terms…
… and you just declare that your methodological definition is just, the correct one… and then are displeased that they don’t say which def. they’re using…
… that’s a you problem, imo.
You can just look at this and say, oh, this interesting, though a bit vague, I wonder if other studies/polls are more explicit, have precise definitions?
I dunno.
Do you maybe wanna provide statistics that you think are more accurate?
…
The intention is to create a wide gap between “actual” and “perception”. I would call that intentionally deceptive. Its marketing.
So… probably most people then.
Not remotely what I said, so please don’t put words in my mouth.
I think you’re missing the problem here. I recognize these numbers as suspect due to the vagueness. You recognize these numbers as suspect due to their vagueness. Many people, even in this post, did not.
Even if all you do is source from GSS, it hasn’t been 4% since the early 90’s, and has more than tripled since then - and thats self-identifying.
I’m not pointing this out to say “Oh look, there are more bisexuals than they claim!”, but “This is a shitty infographic, do not trust these numbers as being remotely realistic or accurate”.
I’m not sure why you think it would be 15%. You would need to account for cultural factors such as homophobic masculine culture likely making men lie. Especially with marginalized groups you would expect the true number to be higher than what any survey would say because the oppression of marginalized identities means fewer respondents would self identify. The real number is likely more than 20%.
I think its higher as well for the same reasons, just noting that even a single self-reported survey resulted in a number several times the “actual” shown here.