Love these axes not even trying

I was commented this study recently and was really trying to give leeway because am aware of some major bias on my part. Then I got to the Saliva Cortisol results, and saw Figure 5. Astounded, I went to look up the peer review process but it appears there actually isn't one? Unless I can't find it because of language barrier issues. The premise is super flawed and there's all kinds of major issues but seriously, Figure 5?!? It's hard to even imagine they are working in good faith here.

https://spca.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/shock-collar-assets-Salgirli-Efficacy-and-stress-effects-between-3-training-methods.pdf

Edit: Link fix

This is a graph in Sendgrid, which is a company which sends lots of emails. It annoys me every day because there is no reason to add up 'Unique Opens' with Delivered and Bounced & Blocked. Emails that were delivered and opened will count for both categories, and therefore be counted twice.

\"How are your overall deliverability metrics trending?\" No clue cause this graph is useless.

So crime stats are fake...

https://donotlink.it/Krr7K

"FACT: According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, black males (6% of the population) commit over 80% of all violent crimes. Blacks males have earned their reputation, Lady, paid for in white blood."

Until they arent: https://aerocids.com/2020/01/22/has-the-reporting-of-crime-become-a-part-of-the-scary-sensationalism-of-fake-news/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-first-fbi-crime-report-issued-under-trump-is-missing-a-ton-of-info/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/news/federal-agencies-failing-to-report-to-fbi-national-database https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/peteraldhous/hate-crimes-miami-police-irving-syracuse

And off course Chicago is famous for their honest crime reporting yes? https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/chicago-police-misconduct-social-network/

Subtle one, but I keep seeing these same numbers:

https://twitter.com/LukewSavage/status/1217895333230972931

They claim it's explained by this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOf32bKW4AA7PNZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

I'm not 100% sure what math they're doing on the numbers. I THINK they just took an average of the other 3 highlighted numbers. This average doesn't really tell you anything. It's the expected percentage of trump voters given a randomly selected candidate who isn't their preferred candidate.

They seem to be ignoring the fact that a bunch of people would vote for trump over their preferred democrat. For instance, for buttigieg you get 5% who would vote for trump... over buttigieg. 15% of them would also vote for trump over sanders. Since presumably 0% would vote sanders over buttigieg, given they most prefer buttigieg, it should be around 10% who would switch to trump over sanders, not 12%. Similarly, you'd get 8% of biden, 5% warren, 4% sanders switching to trump over their least favorite other.

That still wouldn't really be completely accurate though, since the percentages given in the other candidates might have less than total overlap. So for instance, for biden it could be from that 8% up to 17% (the sum of the other trump percentages minus the biden percentage) who would back trump over another.

So I think a reasonable guess for a more accurate number would be

Buttigieg: 12%

Biden: 8%

Warren: 5%

Sanders: 4%

​

But really the best we can say is more like

Biden: 8%-17%

Warren 5%-12%

Buttigieg: 12%-20%

Sanders 4%-15%

Though chances are the real number would be near the bottom of that range.

​

I'm still assuming nobody would vote trump over their own candidate, but wouldn't vote for trump over some other candidate, but I feel like that's fair.