body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

A RANT: Are my polls unscientific? Depends on what you mean - but largely I hear the word 'unscientific' used in place of 'does not have enough sciencey aesthetic' - for example often people say my twitter polls aren't 'scientific' by pointing to some of my joke polls 1/

34

6

196

Joke polls aren't a 'science aesthetic' (and neither is twitter in general), so it's basically people pointing at my twitter polls and going "Look, there's no lab coats, this is untrustworthy." But this is a TERRIBLE way to think about science!! 2/

1

1

67

You don't need a lab coat or a peer reviewed paper to do science. Science is just a method of figuring things out, of discovering bits of evidence that points in various directions, and YES twitter polls *are bits of evidence.*

4

3

74

They're not perfect evidence, ofc - most of the people who answer my polls are white males 25-35 years old, so we can't call it a random sample - but tons of "science with a lab coat" gets a pass despite having worse sampling biases (and way lower sample sizes) than I do!

2

82

I *regularly* spot check my polls for accuracy. Sometimes I do two sets of polls - with just question A (e.g., politically right or left?) and then again adding in question B (e.g. do you value freedom or safety?) to see how much A answers change due to priming.

1

34

I also do series of polls to test the troll ratio, and have found troll answers increase significantly the less the answer has to do with personal identity; e.g., a series of increasingly complex math problems has *more* correct answers the more complex it gets.

4

47

Does this address all flaws? No! But evidence doesn't have to address all potential flaws, it just has to be evaluated in context. Plenty of research is done on way less reliable samples and nobody gives a shit cause it's done by credentialed people writing in the passive voice

4

2

58

I personally use my polls as light bits of evidence pointing in directions that might be useful to research more, kinda pilot-study-esque. Like, this poll is *so cool*, it's fascinating evidence pointing heavily in a direction we'd be amiss to ignore!

Quote Tweet

Do you have chronic anxiety? || Do you have stomach problems (like IBS, constipation/diarrhea, etc.)?

Show this poll

4

1

57

The people who call my polls unscientific have a really limited idea of what science. It's all around us, and it can be informal or unassuming or outright goofy, but as long as you're *finding bits of evidence and not overinterpreting* then congrats, you're doing science!

3

1

76

This 'science aesthetic is science' flaw is one of the things that bothers me the most about the way we culturally approach learning, and I'm planning on stabbing it in the face in a lot more detail in the book I'm attempting to write.

9:16 PM · Dec 10, 2021

@realgatoblanco

Replying to

Its not science unless you have a lab coat on while writing the poll.

Two Pears Studio

Replying to

Anyone who is actually in science, knows what the scientific method is… and understands everything is a model… all models are wrong, but some are useful. Your surveys are perhaps wrong, but also perhaps useful. If you were using them to effect an outcome, then not so much?

1

Replying to

Have you seen king crocoduck's recent series about what science is?

1

1

@Pythago93935367

Replying to

You could ask a few traditional scientists for feedback and then reflect on that. Your stuff is certainly valuable, but i wouldnt put it on the same level with a serious scientific research.

1

goblin à la mode

Replying to

🔥🔥🔥🔥

Charlie Sanders

@CharlieSand3rs

Replying to

‘Don’t trust data without a science aesthetic’ is a good shorthand for a layperson who is reasonably going to spend no more than ~1.2 seconds assessing a sourced credibility. It’s a logical default to have.

1

1

Vitalist Doxometrist

Replying to

Imagine gatekeeping science Path that leads to nowhere

Replying to

Your polls aren't scientific. Most polls aren't. You don't present your polls as scientific, just interesting--so criticism of their scientific worthiness is pedantic.

1

Replying to

If it’s all in fun, who cares? That’s always how i’ve read them. But polls of your followers on Twitter are about as skewed of a sample as you’re going to get. It’s is only representative of your followers, nothing more.

Darren Reynolds @psychodata@mstdn.social

Replying to

Shocked to discover how much science involves Twitter polls: scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Show