[HN Gopher] "Roughly one-third of students are in favor of banni...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       "Roughly one-third of students are in favor of banning
       controversial books"
        
       Author : throwkeep
       Score  : 68 points
       Date   : 2021-06-19 16:20 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (twitter.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
        
       | akomtu wrote:
       | By "controversial books" they likely mean CRT - it's the number 1
       | battleground in education facilities today. But banning the books
       | is silly. We shouldn't ban knowledge, even if it's the infamous
       | MeinCampf or CRT - only practicing of certain knowledge should be
       | banned.
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | > it's the number 1 battleground in education facilities today
         | 
         | In a university in Frankfurt, Germany?
        
         | disgruntledphd2 wrote:
         | Please (not you in specific, but the general you), can everyone
         | at least try to read the abstract before commenting (preferably
         | the article).
         | 
         | It's in Germany, and has nothing to do with CRT.
        
           | akomtu wrote:
           | Oh, my bad then. I've made the common mistake on HN - assumed
           | that anything here is about the US.
        
       | rawgabbit wrote:
       | Well I am in favor of banning misinformation, clickbait, and
       | "studies" conducted against an extremely small sample size
       | intended to promote outrage and justifying bad behavior.
        
       | Little_John wrote:
       | Any Book, any book is a valid book if the reader has a brain to
       | process it.
        
       | ramoz wrote:
       | Wonder if that includes books about burning books, struggle
       | sessions, or psychoanalysis within political sociology, and ...
       | 
       | how radicalized progressive movements develop -- likely not a
       | part of any curriculum anyway vs redefining them as new modern
       | progressive study or hashtag.
        
         | orwin wrote:
         | Well, the fact that they did not ask questions about book on
         | violence against property and space occupation as a mean of
         | democratic manifestation (which is a far left position) but
         | about books on how homosexuality is immoral and should be
         | banned, i'd say this study will pretty much have the result the
         | researchers want.
        
       | hprotagonist wrote:
       | My very least favorite horseshoe effect example is, as always,
       | _Huck Finn_.
       | 
       | It is an absolutely stellar novel. "All right then, I'll go to
       | Hell" is one of the more courageous bits of writing that young
       | Americans are exposed to about ourselves. How dare we try to
       | pretend otherwise. It is beyond me.
        
       | uniqueuid wrote:
       | Well, the summary is of course extremely condensed, and it helps
       | a lot to read the paper. Some very quick observations:
       | 
       | - These are data from social science students in Frankfurt,
       | Germany. The city and university is traditionally left-leaning,
       | so not at all representative for anything (not for students, not
       | for Germany, not internationally)
       | 
       | - The total population is ~6600, and the sample is N=501, which
       | is further reduced by some missing values. Note that very few
       | people actually identify as political leanings, espeically hardly
       | anyone on the conservative spectrum. So I would argue that this
       | study _has not enough power to draw any serious conclusion_
       | (power in the statistical sense as sensitivity to reject a H0
       | given it is false)
       | 
       | - The measured variables were many more than merely banning
       | books. Some restrictive attitudes were not supported.
       | 
       | Finally, it is immensenly important to remember that countries
       | must pick one of roughly three approaches to dealing with harmful
       | political attitudes (see Ziblatt's "How Democracies Die" for a
       | longer review of this):
       | 
       | - Have all attitudes compete equally (this is the US model of
       | free speech)
       | 
       | - Contain bad attitudes by shunning them and rendering them a
       | taboo
       | 
       | - Exclude bad attitudes by prohibiting them legally (this is the
       | German model, which criminalizes expression of some opinions such
       | as denial of the Holocaust).
        
       | caslon wrote:
       | Does pg get automatically recommended to all twitter users or
       | something? The replies to his post are pretty low-quality; I'm
       | guessing few people in it have read any of his books (technical
       | or the essay compilation). Why'd he get cursed with such a
       | following?
        
         | adamors wrote:
         | The tweet is really low quality clickbait so the replies are of
         | same quality. If you actually read the study you'll find that
         | PG's summary has little to do with it. It reads like anti-woke
         | clickbait if anything.
        
         | loeg wrote:
         | He blocks the intelligent critics.
        
         | sibeliuss wrote:
         | It's the nature of banter constrained by a character count.
         | 
         | Beyond that, PG is a public figured with a huge following, not
         | some obscure academic.
        
         | jahlove wrote:
         | > Why'd he get cursed with such a following?
         | 
         | My observation is that most twitter replies are pretty low
         | quality across the board. Especially on politics twitter.
        
       | woodruffw wrote:
       | Apart from the poor methodology that others have commented on,
       | pg's scare statistic appears to come from just one row of Table C
       | on page 12 (numbered 482), related to one topic.
       | 
       | Looking at all of the other topics paints a different picture:
       | approximately 75% of student are consistently against banning
       | books. But that's significantly less easy to hand-wring about.
        
       | ummonk wrote:
       | Well "from their university library" is a pretty important
       | qualifier.
       | 
       | Certainly, curating which books are placed in the university
       | library is detrimental to diversity of thought and exposure to
       | various views (even knowing what extreme views are out there is
       | important if you wish to counter them). But it's not really the
       | same as say a government ban of controversial books.
       | 
       | Also, this survey was done in Germany, where you can already go
       | to jail for claiming the holocaust didn't happen.
        
         | BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
         | Universities are _supposed_ to be the place where you are
         | introduced and exposed to controversial ideas. At least, that's
         | what I was told when I enrolled.
         | 
         | But maybe that sentiment has outlived its purpose now that
         | higher education is so ideologically tilted towards one side.
        
           | kwinten wrote:
           | About 75% of students who were polled were against banning
           | books pretty much across the board.
           | 
           | Does that fit within the ideological narrative you've
           | constructed here for yourself though?
        
             | BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
             | It does, believe it or not. In fact, 75% of students being
             | against banning books implies the other 25% is either
             | accepting or endorsing censorship. One in four is pretty
             | significant.
             | 
             | It doesn't take a majority of a population to get changes
             | made, just a persistent and vocal minority.
             | 
             | But please, do go on about _my narrative_. Especially when
             | you come to this thread with narratives like "The  "extreme
             | left" is not even a fraction as represented as even far
             | right within popular consciousness and, more significantly,
             | political representation."
             | 
             | Which is farcical when you look at how mainstream and
             | accepted ideas from the left are in the culture of the
             | west. Unless you shift the definitions of what far-left and
             | far-right are.
        
               | orwin wrote:
               | > Which is farcical when you look at how mainstream and
               | accepted ideas from the left are in the culture of the
               | west. Unless you shift the definitions of what far-left
               | and far-right are
               | 
               | OK. Far right idea are built on a simple idea. We (our
               | group, nationalist, cultural, religious) are inherently
               | better than the others. This can be proven by Y[0]. But
               | right now, we are feeling inferior to (our neighbours,
               | elites, educated people, [1]). The only rationnal
               | explanation is that (the liberals/the communists/the
               | jew/the illuminati/the deep state) are plotting against
               | us from within. Once those are purged, we will get our
               | rightfull place in the world.
               | 
               | Far left: A class war exist. this can be proven because
               | X[2]. The non-essential properties should be communal.
               | The mean of production should be owned and paid for by
               | the men and women who work them. The undemocratic
               | republic is a tool for the bourgeoisie to keep people
               | content with an illusion of choice and power. Police and
               | armed forces are the other tools of the bourgeoisie to
               | protect their property more than to protect lives[3]. The
               | bourgeoisie must be purged for the working class to
               | thrive again.
               | 
               | I think both are pretty prevalent, one we talk much more
               | about the former than about the later.
               | 
               | Do you think i misrepresented one part? If so, don't
               | hesitate to correct me.
               | 
               | [0] often a racist sentence, hence its often left to the
               | auditor understanding
               | 
               | [1] French, Jews, Africans, mediterranean (including
               | italian for the Nazi). The list was not the same for
               | Fascist Italy/Spain/France, but close enough.
               | 
               | [2] Warren buffet said so/worker are manipulated into de-
               | unionizing/ transversal fights are a diversion by the
               | bourgeoisie
        
               | BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
               | I don't know what point you're trying to convey, to be
               | honest.
               | 
               | But in _my own experience_ all sorts of people who hold
               | views on the Left tend to 1) distance themselves from
               | "the left", 2) claim that what is perceived as left-wing
               | is actually only _barely_ left wing, and 3) claim that
               | the right has dramatically more power and influence than
               | they really do.
               | 
               | So I'm not really looking for a definition of what the
               | left and the right are. I'm just noting how the person I
               | was responding to must have a radically different
               | definition that convention.
        
               | orwin wrote:
               | Also, the liberal left trying to close overton window
               | while opening theirs is a poor response, but a response
               | nonetheless.
               | 
               | For people realy on the far left reading this: you are
               | behind the fascists and the liberals in the culture war:
               | go to your group and start opening overton windows about
               | the far left culture: violence against property as a mean
               | of expression, street occupation and guns right as a mean
               | of self-defense (rememebr the Black Panthers? Go do the
               | same thing! Or at least talk about it).
        
           | orwin wrote:
           | I've read a book -a pamphlet, really- about how killing heirs
           | are the quickest and less expensive way of wealth
           | redistribution. Several good point were made, not that clever
           | though tbh, and with some provocativness and irony.
           | 
           | I think a better writer could make a good book, less ironic,
           | even more convincing and less upfront with the idea. If this
           | book existed, would you let young people read it? I mean, you
           | could argue back that heir add value by living and pushing
           | their parent to earn even more money, and killing them would
           | kill their motivation, but now, killing the 3rd generation
           | should not have any influence on the early motivation, yes?
        
         | pmorici wrote:
         | Many if not most universities are publicly funded quasi
         | governmental institutions.
        
           | ummonk wrote:
           | Yes, and? Are you arguing taxpayers should be forced to fund
           | the dissemination of extreme views?
        
           | JadeNB wrote:
           | > Many if not most universities are publicly funded quasi
           | governmental institutions.
           | 
           | That sounds very much like someone whose only experience is
           | with large public universities. I don't really know what
           | "quasi-governmental" means, but any reasonable meaning I can
           | assign it is far beyond my small university--and there are
           | way more small universities than big ones.
        
         | vidarh wrote:
         | It's also worth looking at the context - the students were
         | given four specific scenarios:
         | 
         | 1. Someone who believes that Islam is incompatible with the
         | Western way of life.
         | 
         | 2. Someone who thought there are biological differences in
         | talents between men and women.
         | 
         | 3. Someone who is against all forms of immigration to this
         | country.
         | 
         | 4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and
         | dangerous.
         | 
         | Only for #4 were as low as 66% _against_ removing their works
         | from the university library. For 1, 78% were against, for 2,
         | 81% were against, for 3, 74% were against.
         | 
         | While that may still be troubling, it's clear peoples
         | willingness to have them removed from the library depends
         | significantly on the specific statement, and another way of
         | presenting this is that the more clearly a statement was flat
         | out expressing bigotry, the more willing people were to remove
         | works by that person.
        
           | [deleted]
        
       | jimbob45 wrote:
       | If you live in any moderately large sized city, you're just going
       | to get your books from the public library anyway. No one used the
       | school library at our school and we were fairly large and fairly
       | successful.
       | 
       | If it's in class, 99% of the kids were going to SparkNotes
       | whatever book they ended up getting anyway.
        
         | spiderice wrote:
         | Not entirely sure you can claim that most university libraries
         | go unused just because yours did.
        
           | jimbob45 wrote:
           | Wait, I was talking about high school. Do universities ban
           | books too? How does that make sense?
           | 
           | And my point is that public libraries are simply better
           | stocked than high school libraries to the point of making
           | high school libraries obsolete.
        
             | thayne wrote:
             | The paper referenced in the original tweet was about
             | banning books from a university library.
        
       | kwinten wrote:
       | It should come as no surprise that the right-leaning students who
       | ideologically agree with the stated "controversial books" or
       | ideological viewpoints of the hypothetical speakers do not want
       | to remove them from the university library.
       | 
       | Also, it's a third of SOCIAL SCIENCE students, not overall
       | student population, and the study has a terrible response rate of
       | 7.5% which they themselves admit in part 4.1. Also, because it
       | seems like bad faith editorializing by the OP, it's about banning
       | books from the university library, not in general.
       | 
       | In other words, the study is awful and it doesn't prove any
       | point, but because it's easy to spin it into an anti-woke
       | censorship narrative, HN is going to eat this up.
        
         | akomtu wrote:
         | The statistical significance of the poll may be garbage, but
         | the point it's trying to make is important. I'd personally ban
         | CRT rhetorics in education, but banning CRT books would be a
         | direct attack on 1A.
        
           | kwinten wrote:
           | You can't make a point based on garbage data.
        
         | cracker-news wrote:
         | > _because it 's easy to spin it into an anti-woke censorship
         | narrative, HN is going to eat this up._
         | 
         | It is the most tiring and mundane narrative -- that a group of
         | people who are mostly young and relatively powerless somehow
         | represent some grave existential threat by being too "woke".
         | 
         | It's embarrassing for humanity that this is the issue that
         | riles people up. We're killing off all life on the planet, but
         | comparatively no one seems to care much.
        
         | ramoz wrote:
         | Im not a researcher, but why would any study of some social
         | environment not be worth studying?
         | 
         | Especially as it relates to present day & macro-scale social
         | dilemmas, and more importantly a robust history to learn from
         | vs repeat -- Though for this, I'd be more interested in
         | historic psycho- analysis/profiling, present day, and how
         | individual viewpoints evolve to large social disruptions in
         | democratic societies.
        
           | kwinten wrote:
           | Never said it's not worth studying. The methodology,
           | resulting samples, one-sided nature, and biased and
           | opinionated narrative structure of the paper (I urge you to
           | read through it) make it entirely uninteresting is all.
           | 
           | It's clear that this is yet another piece to throw on the
           | libertarian heap and to spin it into anti-woke agitprop just
           | as the OP (and linked tweet, to a lesser extent) did with
           | their heavy editorializing. Fuel for the fire for everyone
           | who wants to read the title and extrapolate some greater
           | social trends from this to fit their already established
           | perspectives.
        
         | marcosdumay wrote:
         | Well, I have some news from the future of that comment. HN is
         | not eating it up. Almost every post is about how the study
         | isn't great and the title doesn't reflect it.
        
         | seventytwo wrote:
         | > an anti-woke censorship narrative, HN is going to eat this
         | up.
         | 
         | Yup.
        
         | swiley wrote:
         | I tend to be right leaning and would flip out if the extreme
         | left was censored. If you can't have a discussion you can't
         | have democracy.
        
           | kwinten wrote:
           | The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented as
           | even far right within popular consciousness and, more
           | significantly, political representation. There's no Marxist-
           | Leninist politicians of note in Germany (where the study was
           | done). There are however plenty of popular politicians and
           | parties with significant power who align with some of the
           | statements and topics the students were asked about.
           | 
           | What I'm trying to say with that is that it's not an equal
           | comparison. There is no political mobilization for extreme
           | left ideas that is even remotely comparable to the far-right
           | that align with some narratives that the students obviously
           | consider as dangerous, such as anti-Islam and anti-
           | immigration, anti-LGBTQ, and pro gendered labor division.
           | 
           | I am not in favor of flat out banning such books (even if I
           | personally believe they have no place in an environment of
           | science and learning such as a university), but it's easy to
           | understand why the response of left-leaning students towards
           | right-leaning topics is stronger than the inverse.
        
             | swiley wrote:
             | >The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented
             | 
             | A good democratic country will swing between extreme polls
             | but if you look around you'll see many strongly leftist
             | ideas (extreme gun control, censorship, minors consenting
             | to sex reassignment surgery etc.) getting quite a lot of
             | support and becoming laws in many countries. I certainly
             | wouldn't argue that they're being ignored.
        
               | caslon wrote:
               | Are any of those "strongly leftist" ideas in reality?
               | When I think of the most famous book burnings and
               | censorship, I think of this
               | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings), or
               | this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism), or
               | pretty much any case on this list:
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
               | 
               | Something I notice is that, whether it's nationalist
               | Italians burning Communist literature, Germany (WWI-era)
               | burning Catholic writings, or the Nazis burning Soviet
               | books, it's...almost exclusively the right-wing that
               | supports censorship, at least on the list for destroying
               | libraries. When I think of who's actually achieved anti-
               | censorship in the United States, I think of people like
               | Allen Ginsberg, the reason the First Amendment actually
               | began to mean something in the US for the first time in
               | its history. Now, I could be wrong, but I think Ginsberg
               | was...a leftist going _against_ the right-wing?
               | 
               | The left seem to have a certain libertarian bent if
               | anything: They seem to want private enterprise to be able
               | to host what they want. It makes sense from a free market
               | perspective.
        
               | swiley wrote:
               | >The left seem to have a certain libertarian bent if
               | anything
               | 
               | My understanding was that the "left and right" is more or
               | less orthogonal to the "authoritarian vs libertarian"
               | dimension. The authoritarian forms of both are absolutely
               | terrible, that's why we have democracy: so they can do
               | their best to cancel each other out.
        
               | opheliate wrote:
               | Do you see why presenting "extreme gun control,
               | censorship" (authoritarian ideas, not "leftist" ideas)
               | might therefore not be considered a good argument for the
               | idea that left-wing policy is gaining popular support?
        
               | bitwize wrote:
               | The first two are moderate positions. They are only
               | "strongly leftist" in a far-right banana republic (i.e.,
               | the USA). Giving people the right to physically match
               | their gender identity is a human rights issue.
        
               | dragonwriter wrote:
               | > They are only "strongly leftist" in a far-right banana
               | republic (i.e., the USA).
               | 
               | Even in the US, they are more prominent in the more
               | centrist faction of the Democratic Party than even the
               | Democratic "left", much less the actual (for the USA)
               | "far left". Remember that one of the establishment
               | arguments early on against Sanders was that he had a
               | historically weak voting record on gun control.
               | 
               | The American Right tends to confuse the degree to which a
               | position is associated with the Democratic Party with how
               | far "left" it is.
        
               | kwinten wrote:
               | Idk if you're still talking about Germany specifically or
               | more global trends. Regarding Germany: gun control is a
               | non-partisan issue and not even remotely part of the
               | public discourse. Censorship of various degrees is
               | written in German law especially when it pertains to
               | racism, hate speech, and Nazi language and symbolism.
               | Regarding the last, I'm not aware of the state of Germany
               | on that point.
               | 
               | However, none of the points you named are anywhere even
               | remotely near "extreme left", even by US standards. Those
               | are all Democrat party talking points, which is anywhere
               | from slightly left of center to center-right.
               | 
               | The "extreme left" (no, US Democrats are not socialists)
               | has no political representation anywhere in the Western
               | world and barely registers in public consciousness at
               | all.
        
             | camdenlock wrote:
             | > I am not in favor of flat out banning such books (even if
             | I personally believe they have no place in an environment
             | of science and learning such as a university)
             | 
             | In society's most important institutions of science and
             | learning, ALL ideas must be open to scrutiny, especially
             | unpopular ones.
             | 
             | Shouldn't we want society to be built on the bedrock of
             | truth via scrutiny, rather than on the mere sand of
             | intellectual fashions?
        
               | kwinten wrote:
               | Ideally, sure.
               | 
               | It is just my personal opinion that anti-science does not
               | have equal value as science and should not be found right
               | alongside it. Given the correct context and time and
               | place, I don't fundamentally have an issue with the books
               | existing or people being able to read them.
        
               | camdenlock wrote:
               | An idea is not "anti-science" merely because it makes you
               | or anyone else feel uncomfortable.
        
               | orwin wrote:
               | 4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and
               | dangerous.
               | 
               | I'd argue that this is anti-science. The biological
               | theory "en vogue" is that homosexuality (not the sexual
               | act, the falling in love part) is determined by hormonal
               | balance during pregnancy. I don't think any theory argue
               | that this is dangerous, and well, about immorality, it
               | has nothing to do with science.
               | 
               | So this idea is anti-science, and i don't think is
               | interesting enough to take a spot on a shelf in a science
               | university. Maybe in the reserve. Are you disagreeing
               | with that?
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | handelaar wrote:
       | "Roughly one third of 501 students at a single university in
       | Frankfurt, in Germany where certain publications are required by
       | the constitution to remain prohibited, are in favour of removing
       | controversial books from a single named library" presumably --
       | while rather more accurate -- didn't quite make the weaksauce
       | point we were looking for.
        
         | formerly_proven wrote:
         | > in Germany where certain publications are required by the
         | constitution to remain prohibited
         | 
         | This is false.
        
           | jsiepkes wrote:
           | For anyone reading this thinking: "huh?".
           | 
           | This is presumably about Hitler's "Mein kampf". Which wasn't
           | banned by law in Germany. The province of Bavaria simply
           | inherited the ownership (copyright) of it and decided not to
           | grant anyone permission to print it. Thats why it was not
           | illegal to have the book but it was illegal to print it.
           | 
           | I believe the copyright has now expired in Germany and it is
           | in the public domain.
        
       | vegetablepotpie wrote:
       | Why not link to the original paper?
       | https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11577-020-007...
       | 
       | > However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5%
       | when we consider only those who completed at least 80% of the
       | survey (n= 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind
       | when drawing conclusions from the data. All analyses are based on
       | pair-wise deletion of missing values.
       | 
       | Divisive political issues attract people at the fringes of the
       | political spectrum. If you're getting less than 10% of the sample
       | filling the majority of the survey, it's likely that your sample
       | is just those people interested enough to fill it out _because_
       | they 're on the fringes.
       | 
       | I am skeptical of the results, because in my experience at
       | university (2007-2012, 2017-2020) I never observed "wokeness" or
       | concern over microaggressions or many of the things right wing
       | media reports on. It's a more likely explanation that
       | Conservatives have victim complex, and "university wants to burn
       | books and ban speakers" fills that complex well.
       | 
       | Why? Politics is just business in disguise. My theory is that
       | conservatives don't want government to pay for education, and in
       | the US they are succeeding in this goal [1]. Saying universities
       | are hypocritical is a good excuse.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-
       | hig...
        
       | thayne wrote:
       | > The target population of our study are all current social
       | science students at GoetheUniversity of Frankfurt
       | 
       | > Participation was voluntary and incentivized with a lottery of
       | three Amazon gift vouchers to the value of 50 euro each.
       | 
       | > However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5%
       | when we consider only those who completed at least80% of the
       | survey (n= 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind
       | whendrawing conclusions from the data.
       | 
       | Not really a great sample. All participants are from a rather
       | specific demographic, and a small sample size at that.
        
         | akudha wrote:
         | I have a request - can we add the sample size to studies like
         | these, in the HN title?
         | 
         | The sample size is so small that I don't think this study is of
         | any use.
        
         | barry27 wrote:
         | Exactly. They say this in the study:
         | 
         | ---
         | 
         | Our empirical analysis is based on original survey data
         | collected from social science students at Goethe University
         | Frankfurt. We are certainly not under the im- pression that our
         | sample is representative of university students in general (or
         | the wider public, for that matter). On the contrary, we
         | purposefully consider the social science studentship at
         | Frankfurt as a most likely case (George and Bennett 2005;
         | Gerring 2007)
         | 
         | ---
         | 
         | ..a fact that was obviously overlooked by the outraged masses
         | on Twitter.
        
         | Animats wrote:
         | This is using the easiest sample.
         | 
         | Here's another study. National, in the US, of fraternity and
         | sorority members.[1] It's not primarily about censorship, more
         | about Greek life and COVID issues.
         | 
         | If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your
         | campus, would the administration be more likely to...
         | 
         | - Defend the speaker's right to express his/her views: 23% -
         | Punish the speaker for making the statement: 38% - Not sure:
         | 39%
         | 
         | Have you personally ever felt that you could not express your
         | opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or
         | the administration would respond?
         | 
         | - Yes: 50% - No: 42% - Not sure: 9%
         | 
         | The sample self-identifies as 46% liberal, 33% conservative.
         | 
         | Results differ widely among universities. Not along obvious
         | lines.
         | 
         | [1] https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/04/1801_RealClear-
         | Co...
        
       | adamors wrote:
       | > We were able to collect a total of n=932 responses in the
       | period from 16 May to 2 July 2018. However, the actual net
       | response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5% when we consider only
       | those who completed at least 80% of the survey (n = 501), which
       | is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind when drawing
       | conclusions from the data
       | 
       | So clickbait BS. Is nobody reading the linked study?
        
         | krapp wrote:
         | >Is nobody reading the linked study?
         | 
         | This is hacker news... our time is too valuable to waste
         | actually reading the article and making an informed opinion.
        
         | HWR_14 wrote:
         | I know you must have some powerful evidence that only 7.5% or
         | survey requests being responded to makes a survey invalid,
         | right?
        
         | kwinten wrote:
         | Reading? A study?
         | 
         | I'm just here to get angry at a misrepresentative editorialized
         | title!
        
           | heartbreak wrote:
           | A misrepresentative, editorialized tweet written by the
           | founder of this website.
        
       | oh_sigh wrote:
       | Why would anyone ask students what their opinion on these matters
       | are? The whole point of students is that they are still learning
       | and studying. Should we ask a 2nd grader whether they should do
       | their math homework or not?
        
       | albanread wrote:
       | Back in the day I joined evening classes just to get access to
       | the technical college library. Reading books was a thing then. I
       | do see some value in erasing human history and starting again. We
       | have been so comprehensively vile to each other it might be
       | better to erase it all.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-19 23:01 UTC)