Americans were asked "What percentage of American adults _____" compared with the true proportion. : justpost

[–] MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

All the numbers on this chart make no goddamn sense. Even the most right wing of fox news watching nutjobs wouldn't say there are %20+ trans people in the USA. They always claim it's like 3 people and that's why they need to ignore them/they don't matter.

I need to see the region they polled in. Preferably the exact counties because these numbers don't make sense for either of the extreme sides answers, but also the moderates wouldn't answer some of these questions these ways either.

Who TF did they get answers from??

[–] Alfredolin@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

"-How many live in New York?

-30%!"

xD

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not buying that atheist one.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

I bet if we're going by self-report, a lot of people who "aren't religious" still shy away from the atheism label.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 16 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

33% Atheist
27% Muslim
30% Jewish
58% Christian (41% being Catholic, so that's about 70% of all Christians)

This just proves that Americans do indeed have more people per capita.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

The income estimates are interesting.

We're apparently quite bad at estimating all income levels except who earns $100,000-$500,000 / year.

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

I think it's because $100k-$500k is a good range for the "rich" people that you normally interact with. That would cover things like lawyers, surgeons, engineers.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

How tf car-brained USAinians in a car-dependant society assume only half the population owns a car?

Or that a fifth/a quarter of the country is Muslim/transgender/living on a million per year?
Or that NY is a third of the USA?

Is this data just bs?

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The NY one is wild. But cars I can see. Couples who share and teenagers.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Ok, yes, but the average answer was 50% (edit: 66%), so half of the people assumed less than 50%.

I should have clarified that by 'is data bullshit' I meant it as the surveys work/overall effort - eg unclear questions or not making sure (actively or passively) if folk actually understood the question. It could be something stupid as a matter unclear 'owns' or 'doesn't own', so people were answering in two ways '90% own' and '10% don't own' ... of witch the average is then the bs 50% bcs it's the and metric.
This is just one example of seemingly the simplest things going wrong in surveys & statisticians not having the data/balls to detect issues from datasets or rule the data in question out.

Asking people questions is hard. They are people after all.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Or that 90% have high school degree. Either the education is terrible or the stats are bs.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Regardless of if the stats are accurate, I can assure you the education is terrible.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Clearly 24%(=89%-65%) of the population with a highschool degree give the impression they don't have it.

Tbh that seems fair, perhaps a bit low :D.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 25 points 1 day ago

Ah, New York City, population 120 million.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It says 3% of Americans are atheists, but about 29% of Americans are "religiously unaffiliated". I would say the poll only overestimated by 4%.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

People can be agnostic too, I think religiously unaffiliated doesn't mean they are atheist but the reverse is true.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Tbh unless a survey specified otherwise I would think it just means not religious.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

Read the linked source.

the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or 'nothing in particular,'

Many of the unaffiliated retain religious beliefs or practices without affiliating.

One fifth of the US public and a third of adults under the age of 30 are reportedly unaffiliated with any religion, however they identify as being spiritual in some way. Of these religiously unaffiliated Americans, 37% classify themselves as spiritual but not religious.

Affiliation is about which community you are affiliated with. It's not about beliefs at all, actually. Affiliated means "I would call myself an X", and if you are not affiliated with a certain group, you are not affiliated, no matter if you are atheist, agnostic, spiritual but not religious or even religious but not strong enough to actually affiliate with one group.

Remember, atheism is a belief in itself, contrary to agnosticism. Atheism is the conviction that no God exists, even though there's no proof for an absence of a God. Agnosticism on the other hand is acknowledging that there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist, so they just don't care about it.

Atheism is in many ways similar to a religion. There are communities formed around the shared belief that God doesn't exist, they preach that God doesn't exist, they study their literature to find proof that God doesn't exist. They defend their faith that God doesn't exist, like any religious person would defend theirs. There are even atheist missionaries who stand on street corners preaching that God doesn't exist.

To be an Atheist is to believe so strongly that God doesn't exist that it becomes something like a religion in itself, and that's rather rare.

Agnosticism on the other hand is really wide-spread, even within religiously affiliated people. There are tons of religiously affiliated people who are socially religiously affiliated but are actually agnostic ("All my friends and family are X. I don't really care whether God exists or not, I don't really believe in the spiritual teachings of my faith, but I'm not that much at odds with it that I can't live as an X, and denouncing the faith would lead to repercussions, so I'll just formally keep being X, because it's less hassle.").

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 122 points 1 day ago (3 children)

People think that 1/5 americans are trans? Billionaire owned media really does shit in our brains, huh?

[–] Stillwater@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That struck me too. 1 in 5 are trans? Who are these people they polled?

[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 19 hours ago

the people who answer polls

[–] MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It doesn't surprise me. With how much focus there is on issues like trans athletes in the media and politics, people incorrectly assume the actual number of people "at issue" is in proportion. This is how we get state legislatures spending huge amounts of time creating legislation that will impact like three people.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But like, do they not notice that every fifth person they meet isn't trans?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe they think all the trans people are in some other part of the country like New York or California, or maybe they think that trans people are so indistinguishable from cis people that anyone they meet could be secretly trans?

That could explain the paranoia that some people have about trans people. And also why people e.g. think that Daniel Radcliffe's wife is trans because she's taller than him (even though they have a child together, but then again, maybe these people think that transwomen can get pregnant.).

[–] hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

maybe they think that trans people are so indistinguishable from cis people that anyone they meet could be secretly trans?

Yet they'll claim "they can always tell" when it comes to yelling at a cis woman trying to use the bathroom.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

And in the end they just yell at a menopausal woman who can't afford hormone replacement therapy.

[–] hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 hours ago

Hell, they'll yell at cis women that are just taller than average or have a short haircut. Or, even more likely, is a PoC.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And these are the averages. Which means for every answer that accurately said 1%, someone said 39% (or two people said 30%)

Which means they think if they know two other people, one of them must be trans. Or more likely, that entire cities of "others" (that they've never been to) must be trans.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago

I feel like this is largely because if you can identify one trans woman, and are right, you think everyone who looks that way is also one. (Because sorry transmasc, you don’t exist to society as anything more than feminine gay man)

Which is why cis women, especially butch women, are frequently accused of being trans.. we don’t meet the stereotype of femininity, and thus must be men, rather than just.. women who aren’t hyperfeminine..

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

I'd like to know how large their sample size was. I mean, this was yougov, so I expect at least some level of credibility to this, but depending on how large the same size is and how biased your selection is, you can get some really weird numbers.

E.g. do the same study with some old KKK members or with a school class in a black, impoverished neighbourhood or with a group of CEOs and you will get very different results.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Live in NYC could be 5%-6% for greater area. Self reported Atheism can be influenced by wanting to be in an in group. Its more than 3%.

How is driver's license possession lower than car ownership?

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Licenses are cheap, cars can be shared, people tend to get a license before they get a car too. You would expect licenses to be more common than ownership. Also no matter how many cars you own, it only counts as one for this stat, one car owner can own many cars and still be just one car owner.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Wait, atheism is that low in the US?? 38.9% of Australians indicated no religion at the last census, I knew we had more but never expected a whole order of magnitude difference!

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 36 points 1 day ago (13 children)

That number is wrong.

28% of people in the US don't have a religion. People here just don't like the word atheist.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

"Don't have a religion" includes

Atheists
Agnostics
Spiritual but not religious people
Religious but unaffiliated people

Saying "don't have a religion" equals atheist is like claiming that everyone who didn't vote for Trump or Harris is an anarchist.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 1 points 10 hours ago

That 3% atheist figure is drastically lower than the global 10-15% and probably misleadingly low because identifying as an atheist on a survey and functionally being an atheist aren't the same thing.

I understand that no religion =/= atheist, but when you look at these other 'atheist adjacent' stats like "no religion", they don't reflect a population that's as religious as "3% atheist" would suggest.

We're probably just seeing problems with the word atheist in the US, not a true accounting of how religious people are here.

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, this chart is bogus. In the last 5 years Gallup estimates of the LGBT population have gone from 5% to 7.6%, not 3%. And there's no way people who understand how to eat soup or wear pants would think 30% of Americans live in New York City.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

No, that thing is just wrong. They "interviewed" two groups of 1000 people online who had opted into their "panel". Either they're lying about bias, or they were scammed.

The easiest giveaway is the "40% of adults are veterans" number. The average American is well aware that almost half their aquientances are not veterans.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

This looks like a poll conducted entirely among silicone valley tech bros.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

This list is Wild. Like two thirds live in Calif & Texas loool

Also 41% are black.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Rookie numbers

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

Given that the "estimated proportion" range is only between 20-76%, regardless of the question, this seems more indicative of a poor understanding of statistics than an over/under estimation of specific demographics, especially since a lot of contradictory demographics are way overestimated.

For example, I am significantly more likely to believe that Americans suck at percentages than that they believe nearly ever single person in the country is either Muslim, Jewish, or Catholic (these three "estimated proportions" add up to 98%).

Side note: interestingly all religious categories listed add up to 189%, but there is some overlap depending on definition (e.g. some people might argue that "Catholics are Christians" or "Jewish is an ethnicity so you can be Jewish and atheist"). Thus I picked the three that most people would agree are extremely unlikely to overlap, which coincidentally added up to nearly 100%.

EDIT: I would like to see this survey redone with the same questions, but with the addition of a few questions for things that are widely known to be extremely uncommon, bordering on non-existent, such as "percentage of people with only one ear" or "percentage of people with more than 12 siblings," and some questions for things that are widely known to be extremely common, bordering on universal, such as "percentage of people that have electricity at home" or "percentage of adults who own a phone." If even these questions result in answers grossly over/underestimating the percentage, what we have is actually an aversion to providing very small or very large estimates. (It is already known that people easily overestimate the frequency of things that are unusual especially if they can easily think of an example, such as overestimating the number of redheads because you had a classmate with red hair, or even because you can think of a celebrity with red hair).

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Try adding up ethnic groups. If you count Jewish as a separate ethnicity, you get an estimated total of 225% and even without Jews it's still 195%.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

My takeaway is that people are pretty good at estimating how many people have children and voted in 2020.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

The voting in 2020 thing was probably not a guess or estimation, but a remembered factoid from reporting around the last election.

Just Post