Pulse checks are phooey (technical term)

Sometimes called ‘instant insight’, or ‘polling’, or ‘twitter feedback’ these short term opinion tallies are of almost no validity and little use beyond entertainment; but they are proliferating. Why do I get the feeling that this is an extension of the self-absorption phenomenon? A person has to take the time to respond, so that the information is already biased towards those with an interest.

At the extreme, maybe all the ‘popular’ issues are only important to a very small and very forceful group. Racial issues are only of interest to those with an interest (in the 2008 elections they were called ‘those who do race for a living’); gender issues are for those who have, well , gender issues; and business ‘hot buttons’ are only of interest to specific special interests. But they have captured ‘share of voice’

Backing up a bit, there is an emphasis in our culture n marketing (and sales). Whether a product or idea, if you cannot get it distributed it cannot be a success. So every aspect of our culture has embraced the marketing experts; and these experts push for more and more ‘share of voice’.  The old saw is that if you increase your share of voice you will increase share of market for products and opinion for ideas.

Old school survey research is complex and tedious, with designed and tested instruments and carefully crafted samples.  Lots of testing – granular results (that take time to explain).  Contemporary pulse checks are the opposite – fast quick and (very) dirty.  Such and such percent of those who responded thought that an idea was good.  Who cares?

I have switched off anytime there is a pulse check.  I obviously do not watch TV news anymore.  There seems to be a connection between those who take quick pulse check polls and those who conflate correlation with causality (and then rant about it). Sounds like a news model for Fox and MSNBC.