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”.
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”.