I have to say, I lol'ed at the section where they asked the democratic participants for their view of the percentages. That they averaged exactly 44% for every category is hilarious :D Something I...
I have to say, I lol'ed at the section where they asked the democratic participants for their view of the percentages. That they averaged exactly 44% for every category is hilarious :D
Something I didn't see the article mention, but would add value, is where these participants are from. I'd expect people to generalize their personal or local experiences in a survey like this, and these numbers look like they could potentially be right in some places. For example, if one of the participants is from Alabama, that they would put 46% in for the Democrats' black category might very well be much more accurate there then it would be nationally. Or another example, regarding Republicans' age; especially in states like Florida or Arizona that have become known for their large elderly populations, I wouldn't be surprised to see the actual number of elderly Republican voters be higher then it would be nationally.
This was an interesting read though; I personally would have fallen victim to this, I found the number of elderly Republicans lower then I would expected. I would have thought they'd make up about ~30-35% or so instead of the 21% they do.
I think you make good points. I was also surprised by the numbers. I'm curious if there is a "fox news effect" with republicans given how far off in percentage points they were from the democratic...
I think you make good points. I was also surprised by the numbers. I'm curious if there is a "fox news effect" with republicans given how far off in percentage points they were from the democratic misconceptions, but neither side did well, really, so maybe that's NOT fair. Anyways just a thought.
All of these, including the intra-party answers, seem to just be turning stereotypes around in a way that just confuses people who don't have a strong grasp of demographics. A better way to ask...
All of these, including the intra-party answers, seem to just be turning stereotypes around in a way that just confuses people who don't have a strong grasp of demographics.
A better way to ask these would be to ask how many people with that particular identity trait also identify with that political party, like "How many black people are Democrats?"
If every single black person (~13% of the population) is a Democrat, for them to make up nearly half of Democrats would mean Democrats only make up only a quarter of the population. But for a large percentage of black people to be a Democrat only takes most black people preferring Democrats, which is the stereotype this is based on, and has more truth to it.
44% of Republicans being 65+ makes it hard to think most respondents have ever been taught population pyramids, though I guess all the talk about Baby Boomers might give people the opposite impression. However, the stereotype of old people skewing right may hold up.
I'm also surprised Democrats thought 44% of Republicans were rich. Like, extremely surprised. The stereotype I'm more exposed to is that they're either poor or super-rich, with no in-between...
I guess I'm taking away from this that we need to improve our education and at least try to get people to understand demographics better.
I don't think the majority of people are familiar with statistics such as "what percent of the population is black". While I agree that these questions could have been worded better to be less...
If every single black person (~13% of the population)
I don't think the majority of people are familiar with statistics such as "what percent of the population is black".
While I agree that these questions could have been worded better to be less politically charged and to motivate or nudge people to think of a problem in a different fashion, I don't think it would have changed the outcome significantly.
What would have been nice to see is for them to split the census. Ask half the people in a party the question worded one way, and the other half the same question worded a slightly different way...
What would have been nice to see is for them to split the census. Ask half the people in a party the question worded one way, and the other half the same question worded a slightly different way (such as the one proposed by the original comment). Then we'd have an idea of the effect size of the wording and a better idea of where the statistics truly lie.
Sure, not the majority at all, that's why I think we need to improve understandings of demographics. But the 13% black demo is something I've heard many many times, I would call it common...
Sure, not the majority at all, that's why I think we need to improve understandings of demographics. But the 13% black demo is something I've heard many many times, I would call it common knowledge.
I wasn't aiming to decrease political charge or to nudge people at all, the rewording I used was just meant to confirm whether or not people subscribe to a particular stereotype about party demographics, rather than see how bad they are at demographics.
I think the real findings here are just that the stereotypes are alive, but it's hard to tell how alive, since someone with a more informed understanding of demographics that does believe in one of these stereotypes, and thus answers something low, will only make it look less believed in, even though that makes no sense.
I was taught population pyramids in high school, though it may have been in an elective course, but certainly not AP. You're right that this isn't a priority at all, and I totally agree that your...
I was taught population pyramids in high school, though it may have been in an elective course, but certainly not AP. You're right that this isn't a priority at all, and I totally agree that your examples are far more direly needed.
It's pretty generally true that people in the US are shitty with statistics. There is a reason that despite pretty accurate polling people believed the outcome of 2016 to be all-but certain. There...
It's pretty generally true that people in the US are shitty with statistics. There is a reason that despite pretty accurate polling people believed the outcome of 2016 to be all-but certain. There is a reason that when that belief was shattered by the opposite result, people blamed polling (despite the pretty accurate polls, nationally averages were off by less than one percent? Like, that's not even at the edge of a stated polling error).
There is a reason that people appear to making the same goddamn mistakes this election cycle when predicting the likely outcomes. It is a simple matter, first and foremost, of innumeracy. Then, and only after then, we can talk about things like social media distorting the view of an already number-challenged group of people. This video is a classic explanation of the effect created by social media, though I'm less sure how big an impact it has in real terms it seems obvious to be generally true.
There is some interesting stuff in there, but how relevant are those questions really? How accurate are people at estimating national groups based on their own personal experience? Would we see...
There is some interesting stuff in there, but how relevant are those questions really? How accurate are people at estimating national groups based on their own personal experience? Would we see similar error rates for estimations of "NFL fans", "Nurses", "People who drive Audi cars", etc.?
I can easily see why people would be wrong about the number of rich people in the Republican party. Most Democrats live in urban areas, where the vast majority of Republicans there are quite wealthy. Also the Republican polices are directly beneficial to those said quite wealthy Republicans while being detrimental to the poor people that they see in everyday life. It's a perfect recipe for bad estimation, but I don't think you can draw the general "Democrats are wrong about Republicans" line from that analysis.
This is highlighted fairly well in a paragraph near the bottom If you click through to the links in the article, you'll see that in other polls there's a stark party line difference between some...
It's a perfect recipe for bad estimation, but I don't think you can draw the general "Democrats are wrong about Republicans" line from that analysis.
This is highlighted fairly well in a paragraph near the bottom
In other words, if you told someone on the phone whom you had never met before that you are white, that single fact would not tell them much more about you. But if you told them that you are a Republican, they could reasonably assume that you are not black, lesbian, gay, transgender or bisexual, nonreligious or Jewish. They could also assume that you don’t live in Washington, D.C., and that you don’t believe racial discrimination is the primary reason blacks aren’t making more advances in today’s America. If you told them you are a Democrat, they would have good reason to believe that you are not a white evangelical Christian and don’t live in coal country in Kentucky. (We should not exaggerate how perfectly sorted people are: In raw numbers, there are still plenty people who buck their party’s stereotypes — young and non-evangelical Republicans and Democrats who are religious and non-urban.)
If you click through to the links in the article, you'll see that in other polls there's a stark party line difference between some of what's called out here.
The title stems from all the research in the article, not just the content or the first portion where they discuss the most relevant questionnaire.
There is some reality to what's being said, however, as many stereotypes are born in some twisted form of truth. That is to say, assuming a democrat is not from coal country, Kentucky is a statistically safe assumption. However, it also ends up distorting our perception of what your typical Democrat looks like (and vice versa).
I still don't see how you get "Democrats are wrong about Republicans" or vice versa from that research. It just shows polarization and more extreme sorting over time.
I still don't see how you get "Democrats are wrong about Republicans" or vice versa from that research. It just shows polarization and more extreme sorting over time.
Because the assumption, while potentially based in fact, is an assumption and can be wrong? That being said, it's also an over-generalization to say "democrats are wrong about republicans" and not...
Because the assumption, while potentially based in fact, is an assumption and can be wrong?
That being said, it's also an over-generalization to say "democrats are wrong about republicans" and not preface it with "most" or "some". Obviously not everyone will be wrong about everything.
But the point of this article wasn't to argue semantics. It was to point out that, in general, both sides have wrong assumptions about the other side. I believe, or at least hope, the point of the article was an attempt to get both sides to re-evaluate what they think of the other party and come to a more humanistic realization that people are people first and maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly.
But that just goes back to my original critique. People are, in general, terrible at estimating demographics and the breakdowns. This goes for politics as much as any other thing. I don't think...
But that just goes back to my original critique. People are, in general, terrible at estimating demographics and the breakdowns. This goes for politics as much as any other thing. I don't think the article does anything besides demonstrate that.
If it wants to show me how my personal assumptions are wrong about "the other side" I'm going to need voting behavior, policy, and similar analysis. Actions and their consequences are what differentiate people.
The actual study shows that we are all bad at estimating statistics when it comes to stereotypes https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/697253 While partisanship makes things worse, it...
The actual study shows that we are all bad at estimating statistics when it comes to stereotypes
I have to say, I lol'ed at the section where they asked the democratic participants for their view of the percentages. That they averaged exactly 44% for every category is hilarious :D
Something I didn't see the article mention, but would add value, is where these participants are from. I'd expect people to generalize their personal or local experiences in a survey like this, and these numbers look like they could potentially be right in some places. For example, if one of the participants is from Alabama, that they would put 46% in for the Democrats' black category might very well be much more accurate there then it would be nationally. Or another example, regarding Republicans' age; especially in states like Florida or Arizona that have become known for their large elderly populations, I wouldn't be surprised to see the actual number of elderly Republican voters be higher then it would be nationally.
This was an interesting read though; I personally would have fallen victim to this, I found the number of elderly Republicans lower then I would expected. I would have thought they'd make up about ~30-35% or so instead of the 21% they do.
I think you make good points. I was also surprised by the numbers. I'm curious if there is a "fox news effect" with republicans given how far off in percentage points they were from the democratic misconceptions, but neither side did well, really, so maybe that's NOT fair. Anyways just a thought.
EDIT: Forgot a word there..
All of these, including the intra-party answers, seem to just be turning stereotypes around in a way that just confuses people who don't have a strong grasp of demographics.
A better way to ask these would be to ask how many people with that particular identity trait also identify with that political party, like "How many black people are Democrats?"
If every single black person (~13% of the population) is a Democrat, for them to make up nearly half of Democrats would mean Democrats only make up only a quarter of the population. But for a large percentage of black people to be a Democrat only takes most black people preferring Democrats, which is the stereotype this is based on, and has more truth to it.
44% of Republicans being 65+ makes it hard to think most respondents have ever been taught population pyramids, though I guess all the talk about Baby Boomers might give people the opposite impression. However, the stereotype of old people skewing right may hold up.
I'm also surprised Democrats thought 44% of Republicans were rich. Like, extremely surprised. The stereotype I'm more exposed to is that they're either poor or super-rich, with no in-between...
I guess I'm taking away from this that we need to improve our education and at least try to get people to understand demographics better.
I don't think the majority of people are familiar with statistics such as "what percent of the population is black".
While I agree that these questions could have been worded better to be less politically charged and to motivate or nudge people to think of a problem in a different fashion, I don't think it would have changed the outcome significantly.
What would have been nice to see is for them to split the census. Ask half the people in a party the question worded one way, and the other half the same question worded a slightly different way (such as the one proposed by the original comment). Then we'd have an idea of the effect size of the wording and a better idea of where the statistics truly lie.
Sure, not the majority at all, that's why I think we need to improve understandings of demographics. But the 13% black demo is something I've heard many many times, I would call it common knowledge.
I wasn't aiming to decrease political charge or to nudge people at all, the rewording I used was just meant to confirm whether or not people subscribe to a particular stereotype about party demographics, rather than see how bad they are at demographics.
I think the real findings here are just that the stereotypes are alive, but it's hard to tell how alive, since someone with a more informed understanding of demographics that does believe in one of these stereotypes, and thus answers something low, will only make it look less believed in, even though that makes no sense.
I was taught population pyramids in high school, though it may have been in an elective course, but certainly not AP. You're right that this isn't a priority at all, and I totally agree that your examples are far more direly needed.
It's pretty generally true that people in the US are shitty with statistics. There is a reason that despite pretty accurate polling people believed the outcome of 2016 to be all-but certain. There is a reason that when that belief was shattered by the opposite result, people blamed polling (despite the pretty accurate polls, nationally averages were off by less than one percent? Like, that's not even at the edge of a stated polling error).
There is a reason that people appear to making the same goddamn mistakes this election cycle when predicting the likely outcomes. It is a simple matter, first and foremost, of innumeracy. Then, and only after then, we can talk about things like social media distorting the view of an already number-challenged group of people. This video is a classic explanation of the effect created by social media, though I'm less sure how big an impact it has in real terms it seems obvious to be generally true.
Interesting results in light of the narrative pushed by both sides.
There is some interesting stuff in there, but how relevant are those questions really? How accurate are people at estimating national groups based on their own personal experience? Would we see similar error rates for estimations of "NFL fans", "Nurses", "People who drive Audi cars", etc.?
I can easily see why people would be wrong about the number of rich people in the Republican party. Most Democrats live in urban areas, where the vast majority of Republicans there are quite wealthy. Also the Republican polices are directly beneficial to those said quite wealthy Republicans while being detrimental to the poor people that they see in everyday life. It's a perfect recipe for bad estimation, but I don't think you can draw the general "Democrats are wrong about Republicans" line from that analysis.
This is highlighted fairly well in a paragraph near the bottom
If you click through to the links in the article, you'll see that in other polls there's a stark party line difference between some of what's called out here.
The title stems from all the research in the article, not just the content or the first portion where they discuss the most relevant questionnaire.
There is some reality to what's being said, however, as many stereotypes are born in some twisted form of truth. That is to say, assuming a democrat is not from coal country, Kentucky is a statistically safe assumption. However, it also ends up distorting our perception of what your typical Democrat looks like (and vice versa).
I still don't see how you get "Democrats are wrong about Republicans" or vice versa from that research. It just shows polarization and more extreme sorting over time.
Because the assumption, while potentially based in fact, is an assumption and can be wrong?
That being said, it's also an over-generalization to say "democrats are wrong about republicans" and not preface it with "most" or "some". Obviously not everyone will be wrong about everything.
But the point of this article wasn't to argue semantics. It was to point out that, in general, both sides have wrong assumptions about the other side. I believe, or at least hope, the point of the article was an attempt to get both sides to re-evaluate what they think of the other party and come to a more humanistic realization that people are people first and maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly.
But that just goes back to my original critique. People are, in general, terrible at estimating demographics and the breakdowns. This goes for politics as much as any other thing. I don't think the article does anything besides demonstrate that.
If it wants to show me how my personal assumptions are wrong about "the other side" I'm going to need voting behavior, policy, and similar analysis. Actions and their consequences are what differentiate people.
The actual study shows that we are all bad at estimating statistics when it comes to stereotypes
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/697253
While partisanship makes things worse, it is not an alarming difference, and none of these stereotypes are shown to cause increased partisanship.