<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:40, Tom spot Callaway <<a href="mailto:tcallawa@redhat.com">tcallawa@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>That is some fascinating extrapolation you've got going on there. By<br></div>
fascinating, I mean horrifying.<br>
<br>
+1 to keeping Fedora's data as far away as possible from such absurd<br>
leaps of statistics.</blockquote><div><br>You could provide even a single objective scientific/mathematical flaw instead of using emotional descriptors like horrifying?<br><br>The co-founder of RangeVoting.org is a Princeton math Ph.D. and the protagonist of the William Poundstone book _Gaming the Vote_. He's far from being an idiot who makes "absurd leaps of statistics". And how would shedding light on the issue with data be harmful? If it refutes ideas that you believe to be absurd leaps of statistics, isn't that a good thing?<br>
<br>What I really sense is at work here is that humans have a natural amount of skepticism built in, which is evolutionarily advantageous for obvious reasons (to a lesser extent in some people than others, of course). Seeing that such incredible differences would result from something so superficially simple as a change in voting method, usually triggers that incredulity instinct. It's a nice defense mechanism, but once you've analyzed the data, it's deprecated and irrational.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>Clay<br></div></div></div>