lets_get_off_lemmy

Over 80,000 is what the organizers said at the protest.

This works for any task or sport too I feel like. Once you're like "okay, watch this", you're screwed

I have a direct example of this:

I was at the UFO museum in Roswell, NM and the guy that was giving a talk was a self-described Ufologist and this was after the government released the UFO footage. He talked the whole time about government coverup of past UFO crashes, etc.

In the Q&A, someone asked if the recent footage gave him hope that we'll begin to learn more about UFOs now that the government seems more forthright with the information... And he got pissed at them for even asking. It was as if his whole retirement activity of uncovering conspiracies was challenged and his brain couldn't handle it except by getting angry at an honest question.

His conspiracy seemed to be more boring than he thought (and spent decades "researching") so he wouldn't allow the truth to shatter it. It was fascinating to see in real-time.

Long, boring, hard to pay attention to. I read philosophy and theory sometimes but it's few and far between for those reasons. I really have to be in a special mood to sit down and read something that dense.

Edit: I'm not the original commenter

Depression for me.

No. I wish I could stay awake forever sometimes.

Lol you don't get to be rude if you apologize first.

That we're able to dodge the incoming wave of fascism and peacefully skim board into progressive politics.

There are others that don't get the coverage, but yeah, pretty fuckin lame anyway. If only for the fact that they don't get the coverage.

This is such a drunk, stupid tech bro idea.

Focus groups aren't meant to be used for gaining an understanding of a broad swath of the population. Focus groups are used for exploratory research, concept testing, and understanding the "why" behind opinions and behaviors.

If you want to generalize trends towards large populations, you're going to need a large sample size. It's statistics that suggests that many respondents will leave you with extremely low confidence in the outcome.

For example, if you are trying to judge the voting preferences of a population of 100,000 people, you'll need 383 randomly sampled people in a survey to reach a 95% confidence interval. 13 is nowhere near the amount of people required to cover those that considered themselves "independents" before the debate.

That's not to say this tells us nothing, but it's by no means a predictive study.

*edit: I actually would say it's harmful because I think that it portrays the narrative as if it is predictive, when it's not.