To use a concrete example, politicians (generally) believe that the things they are doing will be successful, popular, and beneficial to their reelection odds. In the past, the only immediate counter-evidence was polling, and this could be dismissed, often rightly, as push-polling intended to apply pressure rather than accurately predict results.
I think politicians to plenty of things that they believe to be mostly ignored by most voters and not directly affect reelection odds. Dominics Cummings had a lot of trouble getting politicians in the UK to do the kind of things that would likely be good for reelection odds instead of campaigning on the pet issues of those politicians.
When it comes to efforts of politicians that are targeted at convincing voters, focus groups are a key tool that’s used in addition to polling.
Focus groups have their own issues. Easy to subvert through any number of underhanded means, and also accidentally through errors in sampling. They also don’t meaningfully indicate issue pertinence. Suppose I really like Trump’s policy on road sign renaming, and I really hate his policy on highway median resizing. I might talk passionately about either in a focus group where I’m being paid for my opinion on those issues, but neither is likely to influence my voting behavior.
Prediction markets are valuable in that they can cleanly separate issues that are popular/unpopular but electorally insignificant from ones that make or break a campaign.
They also don’t meaningfully indicate issue pertinence. Suppose I really like Trump’s policy on road sign renaming, and I really hate his policy on highway median resizing. I might talk passionately about either in a focus group where I’m being paid for my opinion on those issues, but neither is likely to influence my voting behavior.
I think you aren’t factoring in that focus groups are lead by people that are not stupid. You can ask questions in a way to get answers about what people care about.
I think you aren’t factoring in that focus groups are lead by people that are not stupid.
At best, a focus group is directed by well-intentioned people who may not know every pertinent correlation value needed to ensure a representative sample of the public. The conventional wisdom is that focus groups are typically used and designed by people who are somewhat out of touch, and this isn’t entirely false.
At worst, a focus group is directed by people with an interest in showing a certain outcome to a certain set of people. Using the earlier example, AIPAC lobbyists might want to downplay the political damage caused by the Iran War, and can alter candidate selection and discussion framing in order to do so when given authority over study design.
Moreover, participants often want to please the experimenters, and will, consciously or otherwise, speak differently depending on what they think they want.
Put simply, you end up with all the same issues as polling. Potential for bias, design error, and unreliable subjects.
I think politicians to plenty of things that they believe to be mostly ignored by most voters and not directly affect reelection odds. Dominics Cummings had a lot of trouble getting politicians in the UK to do the kind of things that would likely be good for reelection odds instead of campaigning on the pet issues of those politicians.
When it comes to efforts of politicians that are targeted at convincing voters, focus groups are a key tool that’s used in addition to polling.
Focus groups have their own issues. Easy to subvert through any number of underhanded means, and also accidentally through errors in sampling. They also don’t meaningfully indicate issue pertinence. Suppose I really like Trump’s policy on road sign renaming, and I really hate his policy on highway median resizing. I might talk passionately about either in a focus group where I’m being paid for my opinion on those issues, but neither is likely to influence my voting behavior.
Prediction markets are valuable in that they can cleanly separate issues that are popular/unpopular but electorally insignificant from ones that make or break a campaign.
I think you aren’t factoring in that focus groups are lead by people that are not stupid. You can ask questions in a way to get answers about what people care about.
Regime Change #2: A plea to Silicon Valley—start a project NOW to write the plan for the next GOP candidate by Dominics Cummings is a good read for what focus groups can do.
At best, a focus group is directed by well-intentioned people who may not know every pertinent correlation value needed to ensure a representative sample of the public. The conventional wisdom is that focus groups are typically used and designed by people who are somewhat out of touch, and this isn’t entirely false.
At worst, a focus group is directed by people with an interest in showing a certain outcome to a certain set of people. Using the earlier example, AIPAC lobbyists might want to downplay the political damage caused by the Iran War, and can alter candidate selection and discussion framing in order to do so when given authority over study design.
Moreover, participants often want to please the experimenters, and will, consciously or otherwise, speak differently depending on what they think they want.
Put simply, you end up with all the same issues as polling. Potential for bias, design error, and unreliable subjects.