• Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    16·
    3 days ago

    The data is good even if data is missing. Really you can’t see anything wrong eight that? Man…

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      10·
      3 days ago

      This should be improved with adding more countries, like Russia, then comparing with other important data, like freedom of expression, to be somehow relevant to any discussion

      These would expand the data and make it more useful. There’s no missing data, though, the data as it exists stands on its own, it’s a comparison of different countries and approval, which is backed up in other studies on CPC approval rates among others.

      • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        14·
        3 days ago

        It’s also a comparison of how much people in those countries feel free of criticizing their government then.

        To be sure it isn’t we should include more countries, first of all, with different kinds of governments. That would be a good start at some kind of more objective discussion based on tangible things.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          10·
          3 days ago

          It isn’t, though. You have a hypothesis, so you need to test that hypothesis, not assume your hypothesis existing invalidates the test results. This is statistics 101.

          • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            14·
            3 days ago

            No, I simply have critical thinking that makes me unable to trust some random numbers.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              10·
              3 days ago

              “Critical thinking” doesn’t mean test results aren’t test results, nor does it mean refusing to engage with Socialist critique on the basis of it being “propaganda.” You can certainly think of new tests that might shed new dimensions on the test results, but the test results are the test results, they exist and are valid for existing.

              • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                14·
                3 days ago

                No, that’s not how it works. If you test something thatbis not even scientifically measurable over two different samples you aren’t testing shit. You are just throwing numbers around that don’t correlate to each other.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  9·
                  3 days ago

                  It provided multiple studies and recorded responses to various questions, and the data is consistent across studies. In what manner is this not “even scientifically measurable?” Is a response not a response?

                  Genuinely, you’ve only served as a contrarion.