[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

My point being there is always someone who will have a different view who will point out any perceived inconsistencies/bias/procedural inaccuracies etc.

This is a Hugh unknown area and complacency is foolhardy. At the end of the day there is no proven right or wrong - only viewpoint.

This isn't true though which is the point you missed about twelve times. There is no second way to perceive a statistical analysis. The questions in this dataset are undoubtedly internally unreliable in literally everyone's mind, including the mind of the initial researcher. The author of your article ignores this fact (not opinion, fact) and has mislead you into believing exactly what you searched out to look for. Which is kinda how confirmation bias works.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

This isn't true though which is the point you missed about twelve times. There is no second way to perceive a statistical analysis. The questions in this dataset are undoubtedly internally unreliable in literally everyone's mind, including the mind of the initial researcher. The author of your article ignores this fact (not opinion, fact) and has mislead you into believing exactly what you searched out to look for. Which is kinda how confirmation bias works.

And you think different questions will turn around the conclusions. All the problems experienced throughout the West suggest differently. Constantly attempting to undermine my views won't change that.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And you think different questions will turn around the conclusions. All the problems experienced throughout the West suggest differently. Constantly attempting to undermine my views won't change that.

No conclusions can be drawn on this data set. Yes different questions are. needed to rectify this, the current questions were statistically founded to not be reliable inside the original publication and every critique afterwards. Nobody is trying to undermine you, you have genuinely missed the point multiple times by convincing yourself that the article about the publication is true through no clear argument. The article deliberately mislead you into thinking that way, by inaccurately reporting the findings of the publication.
You can have your opinion sure. The original publication does not support your opinions. This is the problem with confirmation bias. Anything can be true by typing it into google and refusing to fact check.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

No conclusions can be drawn on this data set. Yes different questions are. needed to rectify this, the current questions were statistically founded to not be reliable inside the original publication and every critique afterwards. Nobody is trying to undermine you, you have genuinely missed the point multiple times by convincing yourself that the article about the publication is true through no clear argument. The article deliberately mislead you into thinking that way, by inaccurately reporting the findings of the publication.
You can have your opinion sure. The original publication does not support your opinions. This is the problem with confirmation bias. Anything can be true by typing it into google and refusing to fact check.

Don't patronise me - I don't just type in some inflammatory title and go for the first thing that comes up. I have been to uni too you know and am familiar with referencing and credible sources.

It was a legitimate article from a credible source. Apparently there has been criticism of the type of questions asked and the backgrounds of the target group i.e. Turkish and Moroccan Muslims but I don't personally believe that would have made a Hugh difference to the outcome.

Add to that all the problems occurring across the West with Muslims from other countries, it doesn't seem likely that using a slighting different demographic and a change in wording would produce a significant change, although some clearly want to believe it would.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Don't patronise me - I don't just type in some inflammatory title and go for the first thing that comes up. I have been to uni too you know and am familiar with referencing and credible sources.

It was a legitimate article from a credible source. Apparently there has been criticism of the type of questions asked and the backgrounds of the target group i.e. Turkish and Moroccan Muslims but I don't personally believe that would have made a Hugh difference to the outcome.

Add to that all the problems occurring across the West with Muslims from other countries, it doesn't seem likely that using a slighting different demographic and a change in wording would produce a significant change, although some clearly want to believe it would.

Except the source of which all the statistics in that article stem from has been discredited by the flawed way it was carried out. Plus any website that would allow such a problematic, untrue and hole filled article such as that is not a credible source. No balanced or credible source would touch that article for it's headline alone, nevermind the problematic content of the article itself.

You can cling to it all you want but it's not going to change anything, the article is confirmation bias trash and if you're going to disregard all the faults with it because it's content suits your own agenda then you have lost this debate.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Except the source of which all the statistics in that article stem from has been discredited by the flawed way it was carried out. Plus any website that would allow such a problematic, untrue and hole filled article such as that is not a credible source. No balanced or credible source would touch that article for it's headline alone, nevermind the problematic content of the article itself.

You can cling to it all you want but it's not going to change anything, the article is confirmation bias trash and if you're going to disregard all the faults with it because it's content suits your own agenda then you have lost this debate.

No comment on the other article I mentioned then. Although older, 2009, it documented the history of Muslim immigration and the problems associated with it for many years, including how genuine refugee status has been watered down and abused and is endangering the welfare of those most in need.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

No comment on the other article I mentioned then. Although older, 2009, it documented the history of Muslim immigration and the problems associated with it for many years, including how genuine refugee status has been watered down and abused and is endangering the welfare of those most in need.

Unless you have a link to it then it's worthless since it could very well be more trashy confirmation bias like this article was.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It was a legitimate article from a credible source. Apparently there has been criticism of the type of questions asked and the backgrounds of the target group i.e. Turkish and Moroccan Muslims but I don't personally believe that would have made a Hugh difference to the outcome.
.

The independent statistical analysis made by the man who wrote the publication determined that the questions was unreliable. All of his interpretations are based from an unreliable survey and he acknowledges this. The article you provided in your original post does not.

The article you used was not legitimate. There were countless issues in the researchers method. your article made zero references with any of the many flaws in the publication. It was a biased article by somebody with a similar mindset to you. This person completely skirted arounf the facts of the publication to further his mindset.

I have never heard of the website before, I can take your word for its reputation. This individual article, however, horse****. Undeniably.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

The independent statistical analysis made by the man who wrote the publication determined that the questions was unreliable. All of his interpretations are based from an unreliable survey and he acknowledges this. The article you provided in your original post does not.

The article you used was not legitimate. There were countless issues in the researchers method. your article made zero references with any of the many flaws in the publication. It was a biased article by somebody with a similar mindset to you. This person completely skirted arounf the facts of the publication to further his mindset.

I have never heard of the website before, I can take your word for its reputation. This individual article, however, horse****. Undeniably.

Yeah think you pretty much said this about twice already - what is this Groundhog Day or something or do you just like the sound of your own words.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Yeah think you pretty much said this about twice already - what is this Groundhog Day or something or do you just like the sound of your own words.

You continued to suggest it was a legitimate article. It was only natural to presume you still didnt understand what you misunderstood every other time.