Editing 2357: Polls vs the Street

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 13: Line 13:
 
Many news organizations, and other data-driven institutions, conduct or commission polls to assess the opinions of the general public.  These polls generally rely on asking a randomly selected and anonymous set of people a set of consistent, prepared and deliberately crafted questions about their opinions, experiences, and intents. The results of these polls are traditionally held to reflect the views of the public as a whole, within certain margins for error. Many news shows also conduct "man-on-the-street" interviews (more formally known as ''{{w|vox populi}}'', "voice of the people"), to provide a human face of "the public" and engage viewers more.  Many pollsters, pundits, and politicians worry that polling data may not accurately reflect the true trends in public opinion, as in the infamous "{{w|Dewey Defeats Truman}}" newspaper headline, and so White Hat is here extolling the virtues of interviewing [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Common-Folk "real people"] to get at that ground truth.
 
Many news organizations, and other data-driven institutions, conduct or commission polls to assess the opinions of the general public.  These polls generally rely on asking a randomly selected and anonymous set of people a set of consistent, prepared and deliberately crafted questions about their opinions, experiences, and intents. The results of these polls are traditionally held to reflect the views of the public as a whole, within certain margins for error. Many news shows also conduct "man-on-the-street" interviews (more formally known as ''{{w|vox populi}}'', "voice of the people"), to provide a human face of "the public" and engage viewers more.  Many pollsters, pundits, and politicians worry that polling data may not accurately reflect the true trends in public opinion, as in the infamous "{{w|Dewey Defeats Truman}}" newspaper headline, and so White Hat is here extolling the virtues of interviewing [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Common-Folk "real people"] to get at that ground truth.
  
βˆ’
White Hat suggests that, while polls suggest "candidate X" is more favored, the people on the street that White Hat interviews are more supportive of "candidate Y". He implies that his experiences reflect reality better than the polls. There are a number of reasons why polls may not be entirely representative.  The sampling method might not be genuinely random, some groups might be less likely than others to respond to a poll, and it's argued that some people express views that they consider to be more socially acceptable, even in anonymous polls, but vote differently in actual elections (examples include the "{{w|Bradley effect}}" and the "{{w|shy Tory factor}}"). Despite these concerns, there is little evidence that individual conversations do a better job at determining public opinion than polling. However, attempting to get a person from off the street to report for a news anchor instead would obviously exacerbate all of these problems immensely, rather than fixing anything.
+
White Hat suggests that, while polls suggest "candidate X" is more favored, the people on the street that White Hat interviews are more supportive of "candidate Y". He implies that his experiences reflect reality better than the polls. There are a number of reasons why polls may not be entirely representative.  The sampling method might not be genuinely random, some groups might be less likely than others to respond to a poll, and it's argued that some people express views that they consider to be more socially acceptable, even in anonymous polls, but vote differently in actual elections (examples include the "{{w|Bradley effect}}" and the "{{w|shy Tory factor}}"). Despite these concerns, there is little evidence that individual conversations do a better job at determining public opinion than polling.
  
 
This comic is likely a reference to the {{w|2020 United States presidential election}}, which occurred on November 3, 2020 (about 2 months from the time of the comic's publication), which Democrat [[Joe Biden]] won. Most polls showed Biden polling ahead of incumbent Donald Trump, but Trump and his supporters frequently argued that the polls are inaccurate, often arguing that they personally knew or talked to many Trump supporters, and few Biden supporters. At the same time, the fact that Trump won the 2016 election astonished many (including Randall) who had seldom met Trump supporters in their own lives and within their own social circles. This kind of anecdotal evidence is generally a poor basis for gauging public support, for multiple reasons. Politics in the US are frequently regional, so sampling in a single area is unlikely to be representative of the whole country, or even a whole state. It's common for gathering places (both physical and virtual) to attract people from one political group more than another, producing a skewed sample. If someone uses their own perception, rather than rigorous analysis, {{W|confirmation bias}} is likely to have a major impact (a person might pay more attention to supporters of their preferred candidate, and ignore political opponents).
 
This comic is likely a reference to the {{w|2020 United States presidential election}}, which occurred on November 3, 2020 (about 2 months from the time of the comic's publication), which Democrat [[Joe Biden]] won. Most polls showed Biden polling ahead of incumbent Donald Trump, but Trump and his supporters frequently argued that the polls are inaccurate, often arguing that they personally knew or talked to many Trump supporters, and few Biden supporters. At the same time, the fact that Trump won the 2016 election astonished many (including Randall) who had seldom met Trump supporters in their own lives and within their own social circles. This kind of anecdotal evidence is generally a poor basis for gauging public support, for multiple reasons. Politics in the US are frequently regional, so sampling in a single area is unlikely to be representative of the whole country, or even a whole state. It's common for gathering places (both physical and virtual) to attract people from one political group more than another, producing a skewed sample. If someone uses their own perception, rather than rigorous analysis, {{W|confirmation bias}} is likely to have a major impact (a person might pay more attention to supporters of their preferred candidate, and ignore political opponents).

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)