Misinformation

[activeStick]

Those questions do have a bit of a lean to them in that we know how the right and left will answer them, so the results are pretty predictable. I'd be curious to see the same poll but with questions that are more neutral politically.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Those questions do have a bit of a lean to them in that we know how the right and left will answer them, so the results are pretty predictable. I'd be curious to see the same poll but with questions that are more neutral politically.

I'm confused by what you are asking for.

-Canada's economic growth lags well behind the G7 average;
-Vaccine-related deaths are being concealed from the public;
-The right to bear arms is guaranteed in Canada's constitution; and
-Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Nothing about those questions are inherently political. Economics, health science, constitutional rights, and environmental science.



What examples of questions would you prefer they asked?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm confused by what you are asking for.


Nothing about those questions are inherently political. Economics, health science, constitutional rights, and environmental science.



What examples of questions would you prefer they asked?

My first choice would be:

Increasing the supply of something will lower the price? T or F

For economics that is a better question than the G7 one, and more in line with the others.

[Jason14h]

Any survey that uses the words “growth” and “well behind” in a question isn’t well written

And I don’t think it matters to see the trend

I would love to see the age and education breakdown . Is this correlation to voting demographics , or to age and education (who tend to vote a specific way )

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Any survey that uses the words “growth” and “well behind” in a question isn’t well written

And I don’t think it matters to see the trend

I would love to see the age and education breakdown . Is this correlation to voting demographics , or to age and education (who tend to vote a specific way )

Yeah, that's the worst one by far. It doesn't give a time period, and the average G7 economic growth is quite different if you weight it by the size of the economies (which gives you the growth in the size of the G7 economies as a whole) or you take a simple of average of the 7 countries. That's because the highest growth rate in recent years has also been the largest economy (USA). Depending on the time period/methodology Canada's growth could be behind the G7, so the writer is hiding behind "well behind".

IMO for something like this you need things that are obviously and undeniably true or false, and I don't think that meets the criteria.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Any survey that uses the words “growth” and “well behind” in a question isn’t well written

And I don’t think it matters to see the trend

I would love to see the age and education breakdown . Is this correlation to voting demographics , or to age and education (who tend to vote a specific way )

Just observation of how things have gone on the past few years should indicate to you that it is voting demographics. I presume what you are looknig for will be out later today.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

My first choice would be:

Increasing the supply of something will lower the price? T or F

For economics that is a better question than the G7 one, and more in line with the others.

But if you are trying to get at the misinformation aspect, the question asked makes sense because misinformation sources push this narrative, whereas yours doesn't really have a big misnformation angle behind it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Actually I don't think basic questions about simple concepts would have worked. You can't use things like "what does 2+2 equal" or extremely simple concepts on economics because there are certain things that people just inherently know and operate from as a baseline (and if you answer these wrong, it was either a mistake or purposely obtuse). You have to use trigger words like "G7" and "Climate Change" to get people into their defensive holes and see if they can get out.

The challenge in this survey would be to see if people - regardless of political slant - can actually go about doing basic research and investigation to find the consensus answer, or if they default to a position that does nothing to prove scientific reasoning.

And people love being the smartie in the room that goes against consensus. That's what misinformation is borne from - feeling like you know something the mainstream consensus doesn't.

[Jason14h]

Fuzz - what I mean is are PPC voters more likely to vote for the PPC because they are misinformed ,
Or
Is the demographic of a PPC voter more likely be misinformed to begin with

Rural and low income (or high income) lesser skilled jobs tend to
Require less education . Public jobs tend to require a degree and work with technology all/on computers /
Etc

Which group , regardless of misinformation do you think is voting for NDP? Which for PPC

I think the general survey results are very important - however just as important is not allowing personal bias to influence the interpretation of the results

Certain demographics are more susceptible to misinformation . And these group may have pre determines voting patterns

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Actually I don't think basic questions about simple concepts would have worked. You can't use things like "what does 2+2 equal" or extremely simple concepts on economics because there are certain things that people just inherently know and operate from as a baseline (and if you answer these wrong, it was either a mistake or purposely obtuse). You have to use trigger words like "G7" and "Climate Change" to get people into their defensive holes and see if they can get out.

The challenge in this survey would be to see if people - regardless of political slant - can actually go about doing basic research and investigation to find the consensus answer, or if they default to a position that does nothing to prove scientific reasoning.

And people love being the smartie in the room that goes against consensus. That's what misinformation is borne from - feeling like you know something the mainstream consensus doesn't.

I’m pretty sure no one is doing the research on the survey . And answering “very sure” , “somewhat sure “ even complicates it more

I actually don’t even know how I would answer the first question

The survey can be poorly done , but still show a trend that is relatively accurate . Both can be true

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Fuzz - what I mean is are PPC voters more likely to vote for the PPC because they are misinformed ,
Or
Is the demographic of a PPC voter more likely be misinformed to begin with

Rural and low income (or high income) lesser skilled jobs tend to
Require less education . Public jobs tend to require a degree and work with technology all/on computers /
Etc

Which group , regardless of misinformation do you think is voting for NDP? Which for PPC

I think the general survey results are very important - however just as important is not allowing personal bias to influence the interpretation of the results

Certain demographics are more susceptible to misinformation . And these group may have pre determines voting patterns

It's probably both. Those parties tend to target people who buy BS becuase they know they can get away with it. They aren't targeting people smart enough to see through it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But if you are trying to get at the misinformation aspect, the question asked makes sense because misinformation sources push this narrative, whereas yours doesn't really have a big misnformation angle behind it.

How about this one then:

"Will increasing the supply of housing lower the price of housing?" T or F

Plenty of misinformation on that topic.

If you wanted to really move the goalposts to the left on your results you could ask:

"Does lowering the price you can charge for something decrease supply" T or F

and compare that to the results from the question

"Does rent control reduce the amount of rental housing constructed?" T or F

[Doctorfever]

Another good one;

Has the carbon tax helped with climate change?

[Fuzz]

A lot of the questions proposed here have gray areas that I don't think exist in the original. You might argue some nuance around the last one, but the others are all straight facts.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Another good one;

Has the carbon tax helped with climate change?

Canada's federal pricing? No, because it's not high enough.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A lot of the questions proposed here have gray areas that I don't think exist in the original. You might argue some nuance around the last one, but the others are all straight facts.

Depends how pedantic you want to be.

(1) I don't think (1) is true for every timescale/type of average, and the timescale isn't defined in the question. This is the most poorly written imo.

(2) false. Assuming that there isn't a conspiracy that hasn't yet come to light.. that isn't likely, but it's quite difficult to prove a negative generally.

(3) false, although the Supreme Court has read in rights that were explicitly considered and not included in the past (eg sexual orientation).

(4) true, but there are other smaller contributing causes as well (eg solar radiation levels)

I'd be interested to see the responses by question. I think (1) has the strongest case for a "wrong" answer to not be misinformation, but I'd suspect the covid/climate ones to be the most aggressively answered the other way. I'd hope (3) got very few people.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by timun

Canada's federal pricing? No, because it's not high enough.

Seems you are one of the roughly 18% on Canadians that feels this way.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by timun

Canada's federal pricing? No, because it's not high enough.

anecdotes but, I have combined Electricity / Gas bills, and after last winters bills, and seeing the floating rate this summer before locking in. The past few weeks I have not yet turned my furnace on for the winter, and instead I have been letting our house drop to 18/19 C overnight, then just opening the blinds on the south facing windows during the day, which has shot the house right back up to ~23C, not a huge change but across millions of people it would make a difference, we throw a sweater on to go to work this time of year already, just put it on during breakfast too, instead of on the way out the door.

2 years ago we replaced a dying ICE vehicle with and EV, which over it's total lifecycle will be responsible about 1/3 of the carbon emission of a comparable ICEV, in no small part because right off the hop we are basically saving $100/month owning it, mostly due to the price of gas.

So on a personal emissions level it has made a difference, the real challenge will be growing that difference to x9.5M the size, because I am only personally accountable for the actions of 4 people.

I'm actually also actively working on a project to prove out the return on investment on self sustaining some of my employers substantial electricity needs with solar, partially because after the boom over the past two years they are in a fairly strong cash position, and partially because the carbon tax allows us to project forward that costs will continue to grow without this investment. So I might be able to leverage the carbon tax for an outsized personal influence.

Yes, it does make a difference.
And it's conservative economists who came up with the idea, which leads me back to what I always say here. I really wish there were some conservatives in the conservative party, it might make them an attractive options.

[Samonadreau]

There is litterally nothing we can do inside of our borders that will STOP the increase of climate change and global warming. Can we help slow it down, yes on a very small scale.


But China and USA have something like 50% of the impact on global GHG and without their help our changes will amount to a rounding error.

Not saying we shouldn't continue to make changes; we should and should contiue to promote it to other countries, but that's just the reality of it.

Sorry to derail the thread.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by #-3

anecdotes but, I have combined Electricity / Gas bills, and after last winters bills, and seeing the floating rate this summer before locking in. The past few weeks I have not yet turned my furnace on for the winter, and instead I have been letting our house drop to 18/19 C overnight, then just opening the blinds on the south facing windows during the day, which has shot the house right back up to ~23C, not a huge change but across millions of people it would make a difference, we throw a sweater on to go to work this time of year already, just put it on during breakfast too, instead of on the way out the door.

2 years ago we replaced a dying ICE vehicle with and EV, which over it's total lifecycle will be responsible about 1/3 of the carbon emission of a comparable ICEV, in no small part because right off the hop we are basically saving $100/month owning it, mostly due to the price of gas.

So on a personal emissions level it has made a difference, the real challenge will be growing that difference to x9.5M the size, because I am only personally accountable for the actions of 4 people.

I'm actually also actively working on a project to prove out the return on investment on self sustaining some of my employers substantial electricity needs with solar, partially because after the boom over the past two years they are in a fairly strong cash position, and partially because the carbon tax allows us to project forward that costs will continue to grow without this investment. So I might be able to leverage the carbon tax for an outsized personal influence.

Yes, it does make a difference.
And it's conservative economists who came up with the idea, which leads me back to what I always say here. I really wish there were some conservatives in the conservative party, it might make them an attractive options.

Yeah, the carbon tax is great policy. It lets the market figure out the best way to reduce emissions.

It's way better than the current plan to ban natural gas plants except under a certain specific set of circumstances. Better to keep raising the price of carbon - if AB needs peaker gas plants we'll pay the tax, and if there is a cheaper way that would happen instead. Maybe it's cheaper to reduce co2 some other way.