Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[nothing to see here]

Never ascribe to maliciousness what should better be ascribed to ignorance. Most reporters don't really understand how exit polls work, and so tend to take early exit poll results as fact (especially when it seems to conform with their political leanings). What this should argue for is exit polling services holding off on releasing results until after the polls have closed, and better education of those reporting exit poll results to the general public. But the data collected in exit polls is useful, and I don't see a reasonable case against collecting it.

You're right. I was a little harsh on exit polls before. They do have uses, particularly in post election research. As a predictor of results, however, they just plan suck.

 

[Staffan]

I wouldn't trust any pollster who actually showed an 'interest' in talking to one group over another. It cannot be overstated that the ONLY accurate polls are those where people are sampled completely randomly. So unless the poll was specifically designed to measure older voters, it's more likely that you and your peers simply missed the lottery (consider yourself lucky!)

It could also be that they had a pre-determined quota of people in various categories, designed so they'd make sure the people they polled were representative of the larger population. And then they had filled their quota of young'uns, and were looking for older folks to fill that quota.

To ensure random sampling, the pollsters have to pre-select and seek out you.

And in most cases (at least most good cases), they have selected X number of people in a number of different categories.

For example, a couple of years ago, we got called by a pollster of some sort. They asked to speak to my dad, who wasn't at home at the time. I offered to answer instead, and they said that wouldn't work because I wasn't part of the same demographic as my dad.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

By the way, dismissing the Laffer Curve as just "Voodoo Economics" hardly suggests an open mind and illustrates the attitude that I'm talking about.

My "dismissal" of the Laffer Curve was actually a fairly famous quote from a very famous movie spoken by a fairly famous conservative speechwriter.

I personally don't care if they have a better ability to evaluate other opinions if, in practice, they never really do.

Well, that's super. But I wasn't aware that we'd been talking about your personal definition of open-minded and reasonable people as "people that change their minds and let me know." If I'd known that, I wouldn't have bothered. I just kinda wish you'd let me know earlier, so I'd not have wasted my time.

There are a hundred reasons that people express opinions they know to be wrong, or unfair, or whatever, ranging from greed to fear of reprisal.

I ask because you also seem somewhat reluctant to question your own assumptions and conclusion.

Right, and you conclude that ... because I don't agree with you. And that's exactly what your position comes down to:

It doesn't matter if someone absorbs, understands, and collates your arguments ... if your argument doesn't have that someone recanting his argument and embracing yours, well ... he's clearly "reluctant to question [his] own assumptions and conclusions."

And that's the difference between us. Despite the fact that you have given no indication that my argument has made any impact upon you, whatsoever, I have not, until now, assumed that your failure to agree was a matter of close-mindedness.

But on that, at least, you've convinced me.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Any poll that requires you to actively seek it out and 'take it' won't be worth the paper it's printed on. To ensure random sampling, the pollsters have to pre-select and seek out you.

I meant as "would you like to take a poll today?" "no, leave me alone!" way.

I don't know if it happens THAT often. When it does, it's often because the aggregate numbers don't break down where the votes are coming from. Some areas mean more than others.

It happens nearly every election, but not in a significant proportion of the races at that time. So yeah, if there's 500 elections and it only happens in one of them, it's not really signifcant, but it sure is funny!

 

[Brennin Magalus]

The trouble is that it is not really an objective truth that evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.

That is correct.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

When I encounter tin-foil-hat conspiracy rants about stolen elections and what not I have to say it makes me less likely to purchase products from the ranter.

 

[John Morrow]

My "dismissal" of the Laffer Curve was actually a fairly famous quote from a very famous movie spoken by a fairly famous conservative speechwriter.

And which famous movie and famous speechwriter was that? I'm sorry but while it's quite possible I'd recognize your reference if I heard you speak it, I think it's a stretch to expect me to recognize a three word quote like that distinguished only by a pair of elipses.

Well, that's super. But I wasn't aware that we'd been talking about your personal definition of open-minded and reasonable people as "people that change their minds and let me know." If I'd known that, I wouldn't have bothered. I just kinda wish you'd let me know earlier, so I'd not have wasted my time.

I'm not talking about my personal definition of open-minded and reasonable people, nor am I using the straw man definition that you keep trying to foist on me.

Being open-minded has nothing to do with people actually changing their mind nor does it have anything to do with how they express their beliefs. It has to do with their ability to actually listen and consider opposing points of view rather than lecturing, dismissing, or playing games. If a person isn't willing to actually listen and consider opposing opinions, I think it's a stretch to call them "open-minded". And if they lack the ability to really understand opposing opinions, that'll cause problems, too.

There are a hundred reasons that people express opinions they know to be wrong, or unfair, or whatever, ranging from greed to fear of reprisal.

...or playing games with other people. I'm not talking about the opinions that people express, though.

Right, and you conclude that ... because I don't agree with you. And that's exactly what your position comes down to:

I'm concluding that because I honestly see very little substance to your arguments. You've now entered the realm of trying to define my position as a straw man so you can knock it down. That's a really good way to demonstrate that you aren't understanding an argument, though.

Let me spell out what I'm looking for as clearly as I can for you. Do you have any specific facts, examples, or arguments to actually prove your original claim ("That is, highly educated people are more open to examining all viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically. (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)") or is it simply an assertion that you can't or won't support? And please note that you didn't originally claim that they were better equipped to assess or evaluate other viewpoints. You actually asserted that they are "more open to examining all viewpoints".

It would also be nice if you actually tried to answer the questions I asked.

My assertion is that highly educated people are often not more open to examinging all viewpoints and have offered some specific examples and specific reasoning to support my assertion. Is there anything that I've said that you have a specific objection about or evidence to the contrary? At one point, it looked like you were trying to claim that such examples are exceptional or unusual but I've given you specific examples that consume entire departments and fields of study in institutions of higher learning.

It doesn't matter if someone absorbs, understands, and collates your arguments ... if your argument doesn't have that someone recanting his argument and embracing yours, well ... he's clearly "reluctant to question [his] own assumptions and conclusions."

It doesn't have anything to do with whether you agree with me or not. You could raise specific objections to my argument. You could provide examples and facts to strengthen your own argument. Anything but the equivalent of, "Yeah... but I still think I'm right just because."

And that's the difference between us. Despite the fact that you have given no indication that my argument has made any impact upon you, whatsoever, I have not, until now, assumed that your failure to agree was a matter of close-mindedness.

My problem is that you haven't really made any arguments. You made some assertions, provided some vague anecdotal evidence, and told me how much Rawls' theory impressed you. As a result, I actually did some web research on Rawls' Veil of Ignorance since that's the most specific bit of information you've offered and, frankly, I didn't find it the profoundly insightful experience you seem to have found it. But since you weren't very specific even there, I can't really tell what you think I should be getting out of it. I've considered several of your assertions against what I know and they simply don't make sense to me. In fact, I think a few of them sound laughably naive and I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't.

But on that, at least, you've convinced me.

"I know you are but what am I." Can we really leave that sort of argument on the playground where it belongs?

Your straw man characterization of my position suggests that you don't understand my argument. Your lack of responses that engage specifics or details leave me wondering if you are even reading my arguments. As I tell my wife, "I don't read minds."

Communication requires that you give me some clue what you are thinking. I'm not really sure what you think you're going to get out of playing your cards close to your vest and not expressing what you are thinking (if that's what you are doing) but I can tell you that it makes it impossible to distinguish you from someone who isn't absorbing, understanding, or paying any attention to what I'm saying. That, combined with some of your statements that fit the profile of naive academic (unless you are purposely trying to act like one) leave me guessing that perhaps you really are just a naive academic. I'm not saying that to insult you but to honestly tell you what this really looks like to me.

Perhaps that's not true and I'm sure you don't think it's fair but if you want me to draw a diffent conclusion, toss me something that will make me think otherwise. I'll happily revise my opinion. That doesn't mean that I want you to just roll over and agree with me. It means that if you don't, I'd like to see something that actually supports your assertion (better than the claim that it's a tautology) or refutes mine.

 

[S'mon]

Really? Clearly there is a correlation? Clearly?

Er, yeah. No political pollster disputes this AFAIK. Education, wealth, race, gender etc all influence voting patterns. Of course no particular individual's voting is determined by their wealth, education etc.

 

[S'mon]

My main point, is that if you work in an environment of stagnant ideas or stratified social structure, then the people you meet will only reinforce your beliefs and not challenge them.

IMO, universities no longer participate in rational debate or discourse. They have their own methods for discussion that does not include normal people. Tenure and difficulty in getting rid of government employees result in less turnover, fewer differences in viewpoint. and stagnation. It can take years to fire someone who is incompetent etc. This gives them a security that most normal people can never enjoy and so they feel free to say things that would be unconscionable in other arenas where actual consequences exist or someone has the power to effectively disagree with you.

That should make their opinions _more_ diverse not less, then?

 

[S'mon]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You don't think that a state authority should censor a web site but you do think that web sites should comply with state authorities when they do censor websites without batting an eyelash?

No, you misunderstand me. I was talking about web site moderators enforcing the web site's own policies re eg no political speech. Not that I'm in favour of bans on political speech but I can see why it is considered necessary on ENW.