Pollsters and those who fund them, you have to ask yourself: If 59 to 70% of the population in any given year believes that your media outlet pushes biased/corrupt propaganda† – would that not mean that ANY poll conducted in your name will automatically contain extreme levels of skewed collection data? A scientist might think so; might think so for nine specific reasons listed herein. But a deluded political group, might strategically use such an effect to their advantage. They might want to even swing an election by means of exploiting, but not acknowledging, such a bias effect. This reality exemplifies the nature of the new poll and electorate gaming underway in American politics.
Believe it or not, I actually had the nine points inside the critical redress of this blog post written a week before the 2016 US Presidential Election. However, I had not yet gathered all the material I wanted to elucidate and support each point. So, with risk of appearing to provide predictive power through having 20/20 hindsight, I want to point out several factors which notoriously influence, especially political polls, into reflecting unanticipated or purposeful bias. Pew Research has provided an excellent outline of the dangers of collection and analytical bias here. While most of this material is derived from sampling bias I have observed over the years, it does align well with, and is supported by, the Pew Research principles defined herein and in the footnotes. (1, 2, 3, 4 Pew Research)
If there existed any question about the political goals entailed inside the Agenda of Social Skepticism, let’s dispense with that notion now – a direct observation by millions of scientists and persons as a result of the 2016 US Presidential Election. It became poignantly clear in the aftermath of this election that Social Skepticism is not by any means a democratic movement. The same tactics which Social Skepticism applies inside enforcement of their pretend science dogma (and wild claims to consensus), are the same exact tactics employed inside the election poll taking and the fake protests ongoing across the US right now. They both bear features of manipulation by agenda bearing forces and hate-based paid protests against a race, a gender, and a people. These are the same tactics employed by the shills who infest social media and are paid to push dogmatic pseudo scientific messages, all relating to one set of political goals and one single religion. These are tactics, tradecraft, signature practices developed and implemented by the same minds behind these various expressions of tyranny.
Employing that segue into pseudoscience, let us examine one tactic of social manipulation which is practiced by Social Skepticism. This tactic is the art of poll and consensus manipulation. Polls in American politics notoriously skew to the left, towards the hate and talking points agenda of Social Skepticism. They also claim to incorporate ‘science’ in their collection and statistical protocols – no surprise there. The astute American citizen has learned that nothing could be further from the case. Here are nine specific reasons why polls are notoriously unreliable, especially polls generated for the sole purpose of effecting and influencing the outcome of an election.
Poll Skewing Factors
Well known in industry, but ignored by ‘statisticians’ in highly contested or manipulated public polls:
I. Means of Collection – bias-infusing polls use exclusively land line phones as their channel and means of respondent communication – a tactic which is notorious in excluding males, mobile professionals and the full time employed. (2 Pew Research)
II. Regional Bias Exploitation – call sampling is conducted in the New England states or in California, reflecting a bias towards tax oriented businesses, such as healthcare, insurance, government offices, and the corporations who work and contract with such agencies. (4 Pew Research)
III. Bradley Effect – people have a tendency to express opinions and intent which fit a social pressure model or keep themselves out of the ‘bad guy’ bucket when polled on polarizing issues. This tends to skew polls notoriously to the left. (1 Pew Research)
IV. Crate Effect – impact of persons who purposely give the opposite response as to what they really think because of animosity towards the polling group (especially if non-free press) and/or their perceived history of bias, and/or animosity towards the circus around elections or the elections themselves. This false left leaning bias is generated most often inside groups who believe media outlets to be left-leaning and unfair. (5 Political Hay)
V. Crate/Bradley Power Effect – the misleading impact of the Crate and Bradley Effects falsely convinces poll administrators of the power they hold to sway the opinion of ‘undecideds’ and misleads their sponsors into funding more and more polls which follow the same flawed protocols and traps. (5 Political Hay)
VI. Trial Heat – the overall pressure which is placed on respondent results based on the structure of or questions inside the poll itself (1 Pew Research)
a. Leading preparatory questions – employing questions which are pejoratively framed or crafted to lead the poll respondent, in order to skew undecided voters, prior to asking the core question, and
b. Iterative poisoning – running the same poll over and over again in the same community and visibly publishing the desired results – akin to poisoning the jury pool.
VII. Form of Core Question – asking different forms of THE CORE question than is implied by the poll, or different question by polling group. 1. Who do you favor, vs. 2. Who will you vote (will vote) for? vs. 3. Who do you think will win? (3 Pew Research)
VIII. Follow Through Effect – only 35 to 55% of people who are polled, on average, will actually turn out to vote. (6 2016 General Election Turnout)
IX. Oversampling – declaring a bias to exist in a population a priori, in the larger S pool from which an s sample is derived. Then further crafting a targeted addition of population members from S, to influence sample s in the opposite signal (direction and magnitude) from the anticipated bias. (1, 4 Pew Research)
Ironically, item IX above, Oversampling is typically addressed in the Notes section of the polling analytical reports. However, such oversampling signal compensation typically only is practiced as a means to address prima facia and presumed S-pool biases, and rarely reflects any adjustment attributable to items I – VIII above.
Until polls are conducted by low profile, scientific, unbiased collection and analytical groups, and not these agenda-laden parties listed below, they will continue to mislead – and to be used as a lever in this pretense to effect a political end-game. For the record, below are the polls indicating both the retraction-back-to numbers the day before the election (reflecting the shock of the early voting results which had them pare back their wild landslide victory they had predicted for Clinton). In other words, the poll models never actually resulted in the final November 7 differential – as that was a manual intervention in panic – so that the models did not look so badly errant in the end.
A note about models and prediction: If you adjust and tweak your model or its parameters, so that it now results in numbers which are more in concert with actual early return data – you have not increased the predictive reliability of your model. Simulation and modeling professionals get this – poll statisticians do not.
Enjoy a laugh, but remember – these are the same people and the same methods, which are employed to advertise to you what it is indeed that scientists think. (7 Real Clear Politics). But such conclusions are derived with much less confidence bearing methods of data collection, as are even election polls. Also, for the record, as of November 18th 2016 at 7:26 pm PST, the preliminary outcome of the popular vote was Clinton 62,523,126 – Trump 61,201,031; a 1.0% Clinton edge, with respect to the number conventions used below. So no one below really got the final results right, with the exception of the conservative IBD/TIPP tracking poll for a Trump Clinton race only. (Source: CNN Election Results Update, 11/18/2016 Election update).
Actual Final 2016 Election Result Clinton +1.0 (average skew = 5.2 points left bias or a 10.8% error rate)
† The 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and USA Today; 7/03/2015
1 Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research, Election Polling; http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/election-polling/
2 Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research, Collecting Survey Data; http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/collecting-survey-data/
3 Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research,, Questionnaire Design; http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/questionnaire-design/
4 Pew Research: U.S. Survey Research,, Sampling; http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/
5 Political Hay: How Poll Bias Obscures Trump’s Likely Election; https://spectator.org/how-poll-bias-obscures-trumps-likely-election/
6 2016 General Election Turnout Rates; http://www.electproject.org/2016g
7 Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
A Humpty Numpty fixates on the exercise of convincing themselves how smart they are and how well they understand everything around them – inside an incredibly vast array of topics. The goal is to certify how superior they are to a targeted disdained group. But the sad reality is that it is never really about the topic under discussion, the topic is really: them. This is a modern pandemic form of neurosis self-obsession, falsely represented as being a ‘skeptic’ or ‘science enthusiast’.
One should examine them self first, before undertaking the courageous path of science.
When the Numpty is Humping the Elephant
The question of Ethical Skepticism is not one of skillfully dismissing arguments and data in order to protect the understanding of the truth; or even what we perceive to be the ‘most likely truth.’ This constitutes simply an exercise in convincing ourselves how smart we are, how well we understand everything around us and how superior we are to a targeted disdained group. This is a modern pandemic form of neurosis. An ethical skeptic eschews such character temptations. I don’t give a damn who is right or wrong, I want to know the truth as best we can get to it.
Truth-accrual embodies in ethical skepticism, such questions as:
1. If I was wrong, would I even know?
2. If I was wrong, would this allow for harm to occur or continue?
3. Can I examine my opponent’s contentions honestly, and state them back to them fairly?
4. Have I really fairly examined studies which countermand my position? Do I even admit they exist?
5. Is my ‘rationality’ simply a cover-game to obtain social or professional acceptance?
6. Have I relied too much on MiHoDeAL claims?
7. Have I gone into the field and actually looked for myself?
8. Am I getting my jollies from the argument, and not the alleviation of suffering?
In ethical science, one seeks to give competing explanations a fighting chance until falsified on their own through accrued Popper verity – and NOT by means of how clever we are. After all, for many skeptics, indeed the agenda is the most important thing on their mind. Or in the case of the numptant, the focus is really and finally – never about the topic – it is fixated solely and squarely upon the real agenda: them, their superior ability to be correct-over-you at all times.
The numpty is simply humping the elephant as an exercise in self-gratification. They have no desire to find out what the elephant is at all. Humpty Numpty.
/philosophy : pseudoscience : neurosis : self-obsession/ : a person who is educated or intelligent enough to execute a method, memorize a list of key phrases/retorts or understand some scientific reasoning, yet is gullible or lacking in circumspection to where they are unable to understand the applicable deeper meaning/science, the harm they cause nor their role in being manipulated inside propaganda. A numptant, or ‘numpty’ can be discerned through the number of subjects about which they like to argue. This indicating a clear preference not for any compassion or concern regarding any particular subject; rather the superior nature of their own thinking, argument, adherence to rationality and compliance inside any topic in which they can demonstrate such. Science, or the pretense thereof, is a handy shield behind which to exercise such a neurosis.
The purpose of this journey of self-examination, the journey of the ethical skeptic – is to seek out and mature with regard to vulnerabilities which serve to harm both self and mankind. The Ten Pillars of Numptancy:I. Social Category and Non-Club Hatred II. Narcissism and Personal Power III. Promotion of Personal Religious Agenda IV. Emotional Psychological Damage/Anger V. Overcompensation for a Secret Doubt
VI. Fear of the Unknown
VII. Effortless Argument Addiction VIII. Magician’s Deception Rush
IX. Need to Belittle Others X. Need to Belong/Fear of Club Perception