Overlooked group of vaccine refuseniks

Politics
42

Incorrect.

Social media polling does represent citizens not connected to the internet whereas polling does.

Allan

43

Telephone polling does not represent citizens without phones.

Knocking polling doesn’t represent people who don’t answer the door or aren’t at home.

2 Likes
44

This is from the Dietrich School at Carnegie Mellon, one of the most quantitatively adept universities in the world (and my former stomping grounds). The researchers are really smart.

So it’s for sure a surprise worth noting.

That said,

  1. 76% of PhDs are not vaccine hesitant. So if you want to say, “See, the best educated people agree with me,” they don’t.

  2. In methodology, degrees are self-reported. They didn’t publish the raw data, but I’d be interested to see if we have a larger-than-expected number of Republican PhDs (i.e., people lying about their degrees)

  3. The straight line of vaccine hesitancy for PhDs is fascinating. I find many academics to be insufferable fart sniffers unwilling to adjust conclusions as more data arise - wondering if there is some of that here.

1 Like
45

Oh my …

Libs gloat when some survey shows that more PhDs vote Dem.

But here, they want to throw them under the bus.

It’s almost endearing.

3 Likes
46

Have to agree self selected online polls are fairly worthless.

1 Like
47

Especially when they come in the form of an “ad” on social media.

We know how ads are targeted… who is more likely to get an ad about “vaccine hesitancy” some who posts anti vax stuff or someone who doesn’t?

1 Like
48

Percent of PHDs are also suspiciously high. Not credible.

1 Like
49

Self-selection bias is a huge problem in polling like this.

You can research it.

Sorry Open Access polling bias. I used the wrong term.

1 Like
50

It’s almost double the number of actual PHDs

1 Like
51

In addition, PHD doesn’t impress me. Having one doesn’t make someone more informed on medical decisions. Unless that PHd is in a relevant field. Nor are people with them smarter than everyone else. Just generally means they spent some extra time in school telling their advisers what they wanted to hear. Oh and spend a lot of time at parties telling me why it’s unfair I made a lot more money than they did.

52

Yep.

Less than 2% of the world’s population has a PhD.

In the United States that number is around 1.2%.

And this points to the issue with FB and open access polls…you generally get a non-random, non-representative sample.

That said, I am looking to see if I can find the actual study, so I can see if the authors adjusted for this in their analysis.

Still hard to adjust for non-randomness and non-selective ness.

53

This is also correct.

Some of this stuff is hard to understand unless you have spent time in the relevant field.

54

That was done by a really smart person?

55

Amazing.

1 Like
56

:rofl::+1:t4:

57

Yes…

58

Probably counting Crits.

59

“Fart sniffers”?

60

They are dug in deep on this whole republicans are anti-vaxxer thing.

Rubes indeed. lol

2 Likes
61

Yes…

Men on online dating sites overstate their income and height.

I would be interested to examine the political breakdown of the PhDs in the sample. A higher percentage of PhD Republicans than in real life would skew hesitancy upward and would likely be the result of education overstatement.

Unfortunately it appears they don’t ask the political persuasion demo item, so hypothesis untestable :frowning:

1 Like