Originally posted by MrWendal
What I find most amusing is how much stock people really put into polls.
That's the thing with most statistics, many may assume that it's concrete and solid, but over time concrete crumbles into dust.
It is an experiment. The outcome is unknown, and we can only theorize about how the outcome coalesced of which many will disagree on various aspects
You could repeat the test again tomorrow and get different results. Again only speculation can be derived from such data as to why it changed or what
aspects caused a shift in the results.
Critics will arise which will point out flaws in the "testing methodology", and will reveal how various aspects were ignored or mishandled.
In the end all you can do, logically, with such contradictory and evolving information is consider it 'out-of-context'. It seeks to interpolate the
opinions of a few hundred or thousand questioned parties and suggest that the larger population is represented directly by it.
That's almost always the suggestion that a poll makes, even subconsciously, hence the purpose and meaning of the 'act of polling'.
Far too often it seems that the results of these polls reveal more of the opinion of the poll taker than the opinion of the public at large (which
polls attempt to "reveal"). Many parties are accused of purposely skewing the results to fit their agenda, etc.
It seems safe to state that it is highly probable that much of this 'polling' is designed to mold and direct public opinion more than it is designed
to reveal the truth about the public. Indeed, human beings are gregarious animals which seek to bond socially with others and will fall susceptible to
the old "this is what we think/do so you should agree with us so you can fit in and we can be friends" routine.
edit on 11-5-2012 by
muzzleflash because: (no reason given)