That’s a stupd headline. First of all it’s not necessarily causal, could be a correlation. So it can “predict …” not “affect …”. And does grammar even allow to use “your politics” like that?
What’s amazing about this headline is that it’s clearly inaccurate as they’re confusing causation and correlation, but then at the same time, the correlation itself is completely obvious and hardly worth researching. Of course groups of different demographics behave differently, that’s what the word “demographic” is all about.
Exactly, this seems a bit flimsy as far as links go… I mean, a better explanation would be the tendency of more inquisitive people to stay informed about pretty much everything, which will inevitably lead to a higher incidence of avoiding ad links. I’d also posit inquisitiveness is a “gateway” for Left-leaning views for the same reason - inquisitive people want to understand and make informed decisions. So, yeah, correlation without direct causation, which also applies to my example. But it just goes to show how easy it is to fall in these traps.
Reactive personalities, who don’t understand their world , and have no curiosity to look, make great targets for scams etc. They are natural made victims in today’s world
Yeah, the logical inference here is that there’s a strong correlation between being stupid enough to click on adverts and being stupid enough to vote for conservatives.
Exactly. I don’t get why the author goes on and on speculating about other things, compensating for age and income levels… This would be quite an obvious reason… More simple minded people can easier be fooled. Both by what Americans call the conservative party, and by the ad companies…
That’s a stupd headline. First of all it’s not necessarily causal, could be a correlation. So it can “predict …” not “affect …”. And does grammar even allow to use “your politics” like that?
What’s amazing about this headline is that it’s clearly inaccurate as they’re confusing causation and correlation, but then at the same time, the correlation itself is completely obvious and hardly worth researching. Of course groups of different demographics behave differently, that’s what the word “demographic” is all about.
Exactly, this seems a bit flimsy as far as links go… I mean, a better explanation would be the tendency of more inquisitive people to stay informed about pretty much everything, which will inevitably lead to a higher incidence of avoiding ad links. I’d also posit inquisitiveness is a “gateway” for Left-leaning views for the same reason - inquisitive people want to understand and make informed decisions. So, yeah, correlation without direct causation, which also applies to my example. But it just goes to show how easy it is to fall in these traps.
Non politically correct summary can be :
Bigots R dumb
Reactive personalities, who don’t understand their world , and have no curiosity to look, make great targets for scams etc. They are natural made victims in today’s world
Yeah, the logical inference here is that there’s a strong correlation between being stupid enough to click on adverts and being stupid enough to vote for conservatives.
Exactly. I don’t get why the author goes on and on speculating about other things, compensating for age and income levels… This would be quite an obvious reason… More simple minded people can easier be fooled. Both by what Americans call the conservative party, and by the ad companies…
I am with this person ☝️