tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post1597435870038139625..comments2023-08-20T03:37:07.774-07:00Comments on PolitiFact Bias: PFB Semi-Smackdown: Kossack "Brash Equilibrium"Bryan Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-24451579705595216502012-11-02T02:13:14.537-07:002012-11-02T02:13:14.537-07:001) "I've already found several!"
...1) "I've already found several!" <br /><br />Please name the best one for me.<br /><br />2) "Actually 2. And you exclude 4 others, which might confound your results." <br /><br />You're invited to name them.<br /><br />3) "No, they're not." (referring to limiting studies to one variable)<br /><br />Yes, they are. <br />http://explorable.com/Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-17071861067896598472012-10-30T21:37:04.384-07:002012-10-30T21:37:04.384-07:00"Suggestions:
(1) Cite my research as eviden..."Suggestions:<br /><br />(1) Cite my research as evidence of the possible liberal (and centrist) bias among fact checkers.<br />(2) Shift your focus toward developing better quantitative methods to statistically estimate the strength and type of bias."<br /><br />Countersuggestion: Wait 24 hours prior to replying.<br /> <br /><br />That's your last warning. Each time you fail to Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-15056685091650249342012-10-30T21:06:47.283-07:002012-10-30T21:06:47.283-07:00"[PFB's] political bent is much more obvi..."[PFB's] political bent is much more obvious than, for example, PF's, and its agenda is evidenced by more than your voting records."<br /><br />Oh noes! He figured out that we're biased! Somehow he uncovered our secret right-leaning bent that we keep hidden by discussing it on our FAQ page! We're ruined!<br /> Jeff D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16256347579300904884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-90235991004072454742012-10-30T20:48:56.519-07:002012-10-30T20:48:56.519-07:00"Let me know when you've found a non-triv..."Let me know when you've found a non-trivial use for your far-from-worthless method."<br /><br />I've already found several! I'm flabbergasted you haven't adopted them!<br /><br />"...number of relevant variables you allow to linger unknown and unmeasured in your system. The PFB study, in contrast, has one."<br /><br />Actually 2. And you exclude 4 others, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-10063302471328193702012-10-30T19:06:15.921-07:002012-10-30T19:06:15.921-07:00"Are you trying to convince me ..."
I&#..."Are you trying to convince me ..."<br /><br />I'm not concerned about convincing you. I hope that by taking more time between your posts you will think more clearly. It also allows me to respond more easily (without becoming exasperated over your repeated straw men and false statements).<br /><br />"I'd call that far from worthless."<br /><br />We differ on that Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-79513669120144446762012-10-30T16:49:44.854-07:002012-10-30T16:49:44.854-07:00"Again, please adopt the practice of allowing..."Again, please adopt the practice of allowing 24 hours to elapse before you post your replies."<br /><br />Are you trying to convince me that I need to think more clearly before I write, or do you seriously want me to give you some more time between comments? If the former, sorry, not convinced. If the latter, my apologies, I'll honor your request.<br /><br />"Your methods are Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-81770246825173058282012-10-30T16:45:45.966-07:002012-10-30T16:45:45.966-07:00"But you don't know how strong that bias ..."But you don't know how strong that bias is. You don't even know what direction it is in. You have reason to suspect there is liberal bias. That is all."<br /><br />That's a bit like saying that I don't know how strongly the tide is coming in and I don't know which direction it's going though I have reason to suspect. Once you look at the reasons, it's good Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-75470688931515140052012-10-30T16:03:06.090-07:002012-10-30T16:03:06.090-07:00Brash,
Again, please adopt the practice of allowi...Brash,<br /><br />Again, please adopt the practice of allowing 24 hours to elapse before you post your replies.<br /><br />1,2) "I guess that finding is as worthless to you as inferential statistics."<br />Your methods are amenable to explanations other than ideological bias. Not worthless, but close since you leave so many factors unaccounted for. The scientific ideal is one variableBryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-9688510972404505962012-10-30T14:14:24.349-07:002012-10-30T14:14:24.349-07:00"...if the story selection process for Politi..."...if the story selection process for PolitiFact is not random then it is highly likely to show a selection bias."<br /><br />But you don't know how strong that bias is. You don't even know what direction it is in. You have reason to suspect there is liberal bias. That is all.<br /><br />"The aggregate rulings for PF give us information about the stories PF selects."<Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-41341205446346193252012-10-30T13:46:26.059-07:002012-10-30T13:46:26.059-07:001) “Yes, I use only two of PF's ratings. And I...1) “Yes, I use only two of PF's ratings. And I gave a reason for that. Did you notice what it was?”<br />And<br />2) No, I don't [assume that…ratings must in aggregate be about equal between the two parties]…The key point is that PF offers no objective method for distinguishing between "False" and "Pants on Fire." <br />Well, by choosing the most subjective category, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-45583642580633036292012-10-30T13:07:12.195-07:002012-10-30T13:07:12.195-07:00"You wrote that fact checker rulings tell us ..."You wrote that fact checker rulings tell us about the fact checkers, not about the subjects of the fact checking. If that isn't an argument that all we see in fact checker rulings is bias, I don't know what is!"<br /><br />That more or less sums up your problem. You too easily leap to assumptions. We know that if the story selection process for PolitiFact is not random then Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-28029760170121759112012-10-30T12:38:32.994-07:002012-10-30T12:38:32.994-07:00Now that you've supposedly read the study, you...Now that you've supposedly read the study, you've also succeeded in missing its point.<br /><br />1) Yes, I use only two of PF's ratings. And I gave a reason for that. Did you notice what it was?<br /><br />2) "You assume that in order for a fact checking outlet to be unbiased, its ratings must in aggregate be about equal between the two parties." No, I don't. If youBryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-31702313433923087142012-10-30T11:44:04.232-07:002012-10-30T11:44:04.232-07:00I read the study. I still contend that you can'...I read the study. I still contend that you can't tell from that study whether you are measuring bias or true differences.<br /><br />Here. Let me address some of the problems with your study.<br /><br />1. You use only False and Pants on Fire rulings. So already you're focusing on only 2 out of the 5 categories. My analyses include all Truth-O-Meter categories. The resulting estimates of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-4220854605304057932012-10-30T11:19:35.092-07:002012-10-30T11:19:35.092-07:00(forgive the typos)(forgive the typos)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-8276827797274605852012-10-30T11:17:49.339-07:002012-10-30T11:17:49.339-07:00> What you've posted isn't a rebuttal. ...> What you've posted isn't a rebuttal. It refutes nothing of what I wrote about you.<br /><br />Okay, so that's your thesis statement?<br /><br />> Your key line is where you ask what PFB would have you do. The answer is simple: Don't waste your time and recognize that we're right that candidate report cards and aggregated ratings tell you about the fact checkers rather Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-70791997396948298802012-10-30T11:10:12.808-07:002012-10-30T11:10:12.808-07:00Brash wrote:
"Oh, okay, so your sample is bi...Brash wrote:<br /><br />"Oh, okay, so your sample is biased, and your analysis is incomplete."<br /><br />The sample isn't biased, as you'd know if you had read the study. Since you haven't read the study, your sample is biased.<br /><br />Stop making statements about things you don't know about, please.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-40473387320764916722012-10-30T11:05:07.901-07:002012-10-30T11:05:07.901-07:00> It is based on PolitiFact's ratings (as I...> It is based on PolitiFact's ratings (as I stated in my reply).<br /><br />Well, whatever it is based on, it doesn't provide a statistical estimate of the strength (or direction) of bias among fact checkers.<br /><br />> It does not have a significant selection bias problem because I used virtually all of PF's relevant ratings.<br /><br />Let me get this straight. You've Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-69279666162429852832012-10-30T10:40:01.453-07:002012-10-30T10:40:01.453-07:00Oh, one more thing, Brash:
"6. "Our stu...Oh, one more thing, Brash:<br /><br />"6. "Our study does not have a significant selection bias problem."<br /><br />I highly doubt that. That PFB.com makes this assumption about its research, which relies heavily on blog entries in which it re-interprets a limited subset of PolitiFact rulings, makes me as suspicious of it as it is suspicious of PolitiFact."<br /><br />Our Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-5848846766031234012012-10-30T10:30:23.585-07:002012-10-30T10:30:23.585-07:00Hi, Brash/Benjamin (noted that you prefer "Br...Hi, Brash/Benjamin (noted that you prefer "Brash").<br /><br />What you've posted isn't a rebuttal. It refutes nothing of what I wrote about you.<br /><br />Your key line is where you ask what PFB would have you do. The answer is simple: Don't waste your time and recognize that we're right that candidate report cards and aggregated ratings tell you about the fact Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6161368243189108227.post-59913802404663960112012-10-30T10:08:15.606-07:002012-10-30T10:08:15.606-07:00My name is Benjamin Chabot-Hanowell, also known as...My name is Benjamin Chabot-Hanowell, also known as Brash Equilibrium. Here is my rebuttal to your "semi-smackdown":<br /><br />http://www.malarkometer.org/1/post/2012/10/politifactbiascom-and-i-fling-poo-at-one-another.html#.UJAJS280WSoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com