• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    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.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        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.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

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

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            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.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                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.