Well, I drafted
this a couple of weeks ago, but got distracted and didn’t publish it until it’s
too late (at least to be predictive). Shame really, I probably like being able
to say ‘I told you so’, even more than the average egotist. Still, some of the
points still have some relevance…
The reason
pollsters get so much so wrong, is that they are just a subset of the
chattering class.
They are
university educated, inner urban, part of the ‘knowledge’ economy, and try to
look like they are actually trendy. They hang out with the latte set, circulate
mainly within the ‘goat-cheese circle’, and spend as much time as possible
doing media commentary with like minded chattering class loonies.
The idea that
their privileged, insular existence, leads them to fail to communicate with the
great unwashed, pretty much fails to occur to them.
(Which could be
why the Brussels bureaucrats, British chattering classes; conga line of
international political twats from Obama to Turnball; and big business PR faces:
all worked so hard to convince themselves that British voters would ignore Angela
Merkels unilateral announcement of the collapse of the EU - when she announced
an open door to Europe… NOTE: I have long since been fond of saying that eventually the
Germans would find their third attempt to take over Europe in a century might
end no better than the other two… perhaps worse. Well now we’re going to find
out.)
I occasionally
succumb to curiosity about pollsters, and actually let a cold caller or an
on-line survey through, just to see how unthinkingly biased the questions are.
The sad fact is that I, like most people NOT of the chattering classes (despite
the fact that I am a university educated inner urban professional with no kids)
would usually hang up on such callers.
The other
exceptions, who will actually answer questions, often being so bored and
lonely, or starving for attention, that they will talk to anyone… often
agreeing with whatever crap the interviewer clearly favours just to get
approval.
When I do bother
to answer, I am amazed at how clearly the preconceptions of the questioner come
through.
Sometimes it is
just the dreadful phrasing… Instead of saying ‘do you favour Brexit or
Bremain?’, the question is actually more likely to be ‘are you willing to take
the risk of flushing everything you have ever known down the toilet, or do you
prefer stability?’. Amusingly, they usually don’t even realise this might be a
problem.
I had enormous fun
playing with these sorts of phrasings in first year Psychology class… it was
great how you could – Yes Minister like – order 3 or 4 leading questions to get
any answer you like…”
[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach
opposite conclusions]
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime
among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous
training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and
leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley:
Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to
that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people
guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms
against their will?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley:
Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey
Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
The problem is, of
course, that most modern pollsters don’t even realize that they are biasing the
responses. They are simply convinced that ‘ALL RIGHT THINKING PEOPLE BELIEVE
X’, so their questions are rarely phrased in a way that doesn’t assume that
anyone who believes anything else must be a moron or a criminal deviant.
Even when the
questions are actually better phrased, you can usually tell by the tone of
voice how you are expected to respond.
I once tried
saying the absolute opposite of whatever the pollster clearly wanted to one of these
phone callers. You could hear the strain in his voice as he tried to sound as
though he was just calmly going through questions while really thinking ‘this
guy is a f******* idiot’.
Try it sometime,
it can be fun... If you're really, really bored.
So the pollsters
managed to avoid the obvious response of the huge number of people who are sick
of politicians talking down to them, and convince themselves that their
preferred outcome was obvious.
They managed to
ignore the fact that all the Bremains Chicken Little Act (yes I mean you David ‘the sky will fall’ Cameron), was so clearly manipulative crap, and assume that
people would be scared for it on mass. The obvious response – that people would be so pissed off at the lies they might revolt – apparently didn't occur to them.
(Amusingly, the only ones to take it
seriously appear to be… the chattering classes! Despite the fact that this is a
tactic they themselves invented to manipulate the unwashed?)
You might imagine
that the fact that they got last years British election so wrong (or the
Scottish referendum so wrong, etc) by only listening to the feedback their prejudices
demanded, might have had an effect? Apparently not.
It’s not that they
are too wedded to their failed models, its that they are too wedded to their
pre-conceptions.
I am irresistibly
reminded of Australia’s referendum on a republic a while back.
Every single
member of the chattering class - every newspaper, every commentator, every
radio program – was absolutely convinced the referendum would walk it in, in a
land slide. The confusion when not a single state supported it. (I don’t count
Hot Air Central as a useful political division, seeing the entire town is
designed and built for the chattering classes to gorge themselves at the
taxpayers trough.)
The only sad part
is that the markets are so prone to gullibly swallow what the chattering
commentators say, that they had their normal panick about the sky falling.
How dare people do
what their betters have told them is wrong!
(I am actually
going to the UK in a couple of weeks, and my wife is there now. Wish I had the
organizational ability to jump on the exchange rate when the markets did their
initial panick. Could have saved a fortune on what things will be back to
almost immediately.)
Still it gives one
to think about a few other things the pollsters are likely to screw up.
Donald Trump
definitely won’t get anywhere in primaries… Well he won’t win the candidacy….
Well he can’t win the presidency…
Keep talking guys.
The more you put down your own voters, the better he will do.
(Not saying that’s
a good thing… the man’s a protectionist moron. But Obama and George W and
Clinton and… well you get the idea… are not exactly sensible coherent
internationalists are they? As a side comment, the US now is going through the weariness and
incompetent insularity that led British interwar voters to simultaneously vote
for more action to enforce peace, and disarmament, and believe both were not
mutually exclusive! Possibly with similar consequences long term?)
Pollsters, if they
want to reclaim any relevance, need to stop acting like those sad universities who
actually sack anyone who dares to question the accepted orthodoxy just because
it is based on distorting the facts to fit.
They have to
actually accept that people who aren’t the elite few might have opinions that
have value.
But that would
require them to accept that their limited insular clique is not the one true
holder of the truth?
The nobility
managed it, eventually (well, after the occasional revolution). The clergy
managed it, a bit (after enough child abuse scandals). The Marxists have gone
underground (or to the Greens, or to anti-bullying programs). Perhaps the
chatterers might manage it too?
Or will that
require its own bloodletting?
Let’s ask the
bureaucrats in Brussels?
