Redactors Does An Analysis Of Politifacts.com

[brycejones]

I could go on, but I hope I've shown you how ridiculous you're being. Speaking of believing what you want to believe, I also find it funny that you are convinced of Politifact's partisanship but uncritically accept the analysis of "conservativefactcheck.com".

Let's not leave out politifactbias.com as another unquestioned source.

 

[realibrad]

but he thinks he's smarter then everyone.

Yes. I should also say he is likely smarter than many here as well. He may even be smarter than I am. It does not change the fact that people here, such as yourself, argue by shifting goal posts. I have presented data to spy that he completely dismissed because he considered the source to be biased. I asked him to look at the underlying data, and he flat out said no. In that he is no different than many here. In my opinion he uses his mind to filter out the data that does not agree with his view points and creates a data echo-chamber. As I pointed out, you did the same with the AP article.

Also, he does not think he is smarter than everyone but I would bet he believes he is right about subjects he takes a stance on. You did the same when you tried to use your AP article to show that people supporting the Iran deal was wrong. You believed you were right on a topic and found evidence to back your belief up. The presupposition that the Iran deal was bad came from your own hubris.

You two are not that different in that way.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No. How many times do I have to explain this to you? The numbers you are talking about here are tiny and it is not possible to make those kind of judgments. Here's just a small sampling of the major flaws in what you're trying to do:

1. Your results are driven by outliers. Just two people comprise about a third of the total entries.

2. Many of the rulings are repeat rulings. People keep saying the same false thing and so one lie will rack up multiple entries. Highly problematic.

3. At the current time 'Pants on Fire' rulings comprise less than 10% of the site's total rulings. This means you are using an outlier laden dataset to evaluate unlikely events.

4. Total entries are about 100. It should be obvious why that's bad.

5. You continually fail to state WHAT YOU THINK THE APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION SHOULD BE. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT.

I could go on, but I hope I've shown you how ridiculous you're being. Speaking of believing what you want to believe, I also find it funny that you are convinced of Politifact's partisanship but uncritically accept the analysis of "conservativefactcheck.com".

If you flipped a coin 113 times, what are the odds it will land "heads" 94 times? Your argument that it's merely a statistical aberration of a small dataset is BS...any reasonable person can clearly see this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, the error is in the 2nd part.

They may very well be disproportionately check republicans, but it does not mean they are grading them harder on what they do grade.

There are more than 2 options. It could also be true that conservatives are more than 5 times more likely, and that they fact check them less to get to the 5 times more. There are many options. You are empirically wrong.

Agree, there are many more options available to explain why Polifact is showing apparent bias against conservatives. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[fskimospy]

If you flipped a coin 113 times, what are the odds it will land "heads" 94 times? Your argument that it's merely a statistical aberration of a small dataset is BS...any reasonable person can clearly see this.

A coin is designed in a way where both heads and tails are roughly equally likely to happen. As I have told you repeatedly, you are unwilling or unable to provide any evidence that an approximate 50/50 distribution is the correct one here.

You are unwittingly repeating the same flaws in your argument that I keep pointing out to you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes. I should also say he is likely smarter than many here as well. He may even be smarter than I am. It does not change the fact that people here, such as yourself, argue by shifting goal posts. I have presented data to spy that he completely dismissed because he considered the source to be biased. I asked him to look at the underlying data, and he flat out said no. In that he is no different than many here. In my opinion he uses his mind to filter out the data that does not agree with his view points and creates a data echo-chamber. As I pointed out, you did the same with the AP article.

Also, he does not think he is smarter than everyone but I would bet he believes he is right about subjects he takes a stance on. You did the same when you tried to use your AP article to show that people supporting the Iran deal was wrong. You believed you were right on a topic and found evidence to back your belief up. The presupposition that the Iran deal was bad came from your own hubris.

You two are not that different in that way.

Agree, eskimospy typically dismisses information from any site he deems has conservative bias, regardless of whether the information originated from an objective source or not. He plays to win, and this is one of his tricks of his trade. But I do find it interesting that he appears to have a very hard time perceiving liberal bias.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A coin is designed in a way where both heads and tails are roughly equally likely to happen. As I have told you repeatedly, you are unwilling or unable to provide any evidence that an approximate 50/50 distribution is the correct one here.

You are unwittingly repeating the same flaws in your argument that I keep pointing out to you.

And you have provided no evidence to prove the opposite. I'm sure that if the ratio was 100 to 1, it still wouldn't raise any red flags in your world. But if the results were exactly opposite? Lol...we all know the answer to that question. I don't think you're being honest with yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

And you have provided no evidence to prove the opposite. I'm sure that if the ratio was 100 to 1, it still wouldn't raise any red flags in your world. But if the results were exactly opposite? Lol...we all know the answer to that question. I don't think you're being honest with yourself.

You are the one making a claim, so you are the one that has to back it up.

One of us isn't being honest with himself, but it's not me.

 

[Moonbeam]

And you have provided no evidence to prove the opposite. I'm sure that if the ratio was 100 to 1, it still wouldn't raise any red flags in your world. But if the results were exactly opposite? Lol...we all know the answer to that question. I don't think you're being honest with yourself.

Come on. Neuroscience in peer after peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that conservatives lie to themselves in greater numbers than liberal do. The notion that conservative brain defectives are as objective as liberals is a total farce. Everything about Republican ideology depends on phantasmagorical lies.

The only reason that truth has a liberal bias is because conservatives are delusional.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Come on. Neuroscience in peer after peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that conservatives lie to themselves in greater numbers than liberal do. The notion that conservative brain defectives are as objective as liberals is a total farce. Everything about Republican ideology depends on phantasmagorical lies.

The only reason that truth has a liberal bias is because conservatives are delusional.

Please cite all these peer reviewed studies that specifically support your point.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't know about selection bias, but their coverage of the topics they select is extremely even handed, possibly charitable to the right. Compare these two which I just read and both of which came about within a few days of each other:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-repeats-flawed-claim-about-us-healt/

Nutshell: Bernie Sanders gets a "false" rating for saying that "we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country." The truth: We spend double the average of other developed countries, but we only spend about 50% more per captia than the 2nd and 3rd biggest spenders, Norway and Switzerland.

Compare and contrast with:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rubio-slams-dodd-frank-gets-his-numbers-wron/

Rubio gets a "mostly false" for saying, "Over 40 percent of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses have been wiped out since Dodd-Frank has passed."

The truth: The highest estimate is 16%, less than half of what Rubio said.

Rubio gets a "mostly false" presumably because there was something to his core point - a significant number of banks have failed even if it isn't anywhere near what he said.

One would think that Sanders' core point - that we spend massively more on healthcare per captia than any other country - is still valid. Why did Sanders' statement fare worse than Rubio's? Who knows.

I see this kind of thing all the time on politifact. The facts they present are highly useful, but the ratings may skew at times and it certainly isn't generally in a left direction. At best it's pretty much even.

 

[brycejones]

Agree, there are many more options available to explain why Polifact is showing apparent bias against conservatives. Thanks for pointing that out.

404:Bias still not found

 

[Moonbeam]

Please cite all these peer reviewed studies that specifically support your point.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

 

[First]

My point is that there is a significant amount of subjectivity involved in determining what is "factual". But it is pretty amusing to see some here getting their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of such heresy.

Who, me?!?!?!?!

 

[tweaker2]

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Great article. I saw myself in it and have taken pause to reflect on its content.

 

[woolfe9998]

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

I have read about this backfire effect numerous times, and I'm not challenging the research. What leaves me confused, however, is how does anyone ever change their mind about anything? Public opinion trends certainly do change. For example, over the past 10 years we've seen about double the support for legalizing pot and at least a 25 point jump in support for gay marriage. We've seen significant movement on both of these issues even in the past 5 years. These time frames are too short to put all this down to generational changes (i.e. older people dying off). There must be a substantial number of people who have changed their minds. But if being proven wrong on facts only heightens the resolve to maintain one's position, then what is causing these people to change their minds?

 

[realibrad]

Agree, there are many more options available to explain why Polifact is showing apparent bias against conservatives. Thanks for pointing that out.

It was more than just that though. You used your logic to support an error in the way the site worked, but logically you were wrong. The data presented does not lead to anything that means anything. Even the things I listed do not lead to anything that shows yes or no in their bias. I would bet there is a bias, but I could not tell you in what direction that bias is.

Again, it could be that they are picking on conservatives and that is why there are 5x more negative. It could also be that they are pro conservatives and that is why there is "only" 5x more when it could be far worse.

I would bet that you do not have evidence to point in any direction. You are working off the presupposition that there is some type of equality and that makes your logic flawed. It could be that they are equal, or one side is worse. We simply dont have any evidence to say.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have read about this backfire effect numerous times, and I'm not challenging the research. What leaves me confused, however, is how does anyone ever change their mind about anything? Public opinion trends certainly do change. For example, over the past 10 years we've seen about double the support for legalizing pot and at least a 25 point jump in support for gay marriage. We've seen significant movement on both of these issues even in the past 5 years. These time frames are too short to put all this down to generational changes (i.e. older people dying off). There must be a substantial number of people who have changed their minds. But if being proven wrong on facts only heightens the resolve to maintain one's position, then what is causing these people to change their minds?

The fact that in hidden in the damaged psyche of every human being is a perfect child who longs for his original state. It is what makes you honest and a lover of truth. A piece in all of us survives.

 

[woolfe9998]

The fact that in hidden in the damaged psyche of every human being is a perfect child who longs for his original state. It is what makes you honest and a lover of truth. A piece in all of us survives.

You're giving a philosophical answer to what is really a scientific question. I'm interested in the mechanics of how someone may change their mind on one or more issues if people are fundamentally not persuadable on facts.

 

[jackstar7]

You're giving a philosophical answer to what is really a scientific question. I'm interested in the mechanics of how someone may change their mind on one or more issues if people are fundamentally not persuadable on facts.

For fun consider that you presuppose that there is choice.

 

[shira]

I have read about this backfire effect numerous times, and I'm not challenging the research. What leaves me confused, however, is how does anyone ever change their mind about anything? Public opinion trends certainly do change. For example, over the past 10 years we've seen about double the support for legalizing pot and at least a 25 point jump in support for gay marriage. We've seen significant movement on both of these issues even in the past 5 years. These time frames are too short to put all this down to generational changes (i.e. older people dying off). There must be a substantial number of people who have changed their minds. But if being proven wrong on facts only heightens the resolve to maintain one's position, then what is causing these people to change their minds?

In the cases of pot and same-sex marriage, I think that people have gotten first-hand exposure/experience, and that's changed minds. Family, friends, or co-workers who are openly gay and seem like entirely normal, likable people (plus "second hand" exposure to gay lives in the media). Or seeing first-hand that pot isn't dangerous at all.

 

[woolfe9998]

For fun consider that you presuppose that there is choice.

No, I'm not making that presupposition. My question didn't assume it. I'm asking about the mechanism by which people change their minds. The mechanism could be entirely a matter of outside influence. What the research says is that one form is outside influence - persuasion based on facts - is ineffective. For all I know there may be another that works perfectly well.

 

[woolfe9998]

In the cases of pot and same-sex marriage, I think that people have gotten first-hand exposure/experience, and that's changed minds. Family, friends, or co-workers who are openly gay and seem like entirely normal, likable people (plus "second hand" exposure to gay lives in the media). Or seeing first-hand that pot isn't dangerous at all.

Kind of like what they say about fiction writing, that you want to "show" rather than "tell." So perhaps showing works where telling does not. With respect to homosexuality, my theory has always been that a shift in the portrayal of gays in popular culture which seemed to start in the 90's is responsible for changing attitudes, so that would fit.

Of course, this means that there is no way to persuade people through fact and logic. They have to come to it themselves through personal experiences which may or may not happen. Which begs the question of why anyone bothers with a discussion forum like this.

 

[jackstar7]

No, I'm not making that presupposition. My question didn't assume it. I'm asking about the mechanism by which people change their minds. The mechanism could be entirely a matter of outside influence. What the research says is that one form is outside influence - persuasion based on facts - is ineffective. For all I know there may be another that works perfectly well.

Your phrasing did. You made it sound specifically active, rather than "how a mind is changed". And really, I was just being silly. Gladwell, for one, likes to put out that no one makes any choices at all and that is an odd thing to consider.

 

[shira]

I don't know about selection bias, but their coverage of the topics they select is extremely even handed, possibly charitable to the right. Compare these two which I just read and both of which came about within a few days of each other:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-repeats-flawed-claim-about-us-healt/

Nutshell: Bernie Sanders gets a "false" rating for saying that "we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country." The truth: We spend double the average of other developed countries, but we only spend about 50% more per captia than the 2nd and 3rd biggest spenders, Norway and Switzerland.

Compare and contrast with:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rubio-slams-dodd-frank-gets-his-numbers-wron/

Rubio gets a "mostly false" for saying, "Over 40 percent of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses have been wiped out since Dodd-Frank has passed."

The truth: The highest estimate is 16%, less than half of what Rubio said.

Rubio gets a "mostly false" presumably because there was something to his core point - a significant number of banks have failed even if it isn't anywhere near what he said.

One would think that Sanders' core point - that we spend massively more on healthcare per captia than any other country - is still valid. Why did Sanders' statement fare worse than Rubio's? Who knows.

I see this kind of thing all the time on politifact. The facts they present are highly useful, but the ratings may skew at times and it certainly isn't generally in a left direction. At best it's pretty much even.

Yeah. I would give Sanders' statement a "mostly true," not a "false." I think we all would.