Thread by @LongLive_ThePpl

Here comes the first published paper of Zenz about XJ, according to him, "carefully peer reviewed" by "four academics".

Let's take a look at how rigorous it is.

So here is Zenz showing off his amazing math skill again: He calculated that Kizilsu gov planned a 6.14‰ reduction in natural growth rate, that would result in a negative -3.14‰ growth rate for 2020.

Wow, scary.

I tried to locate where the 6.14‰ reduction number came from but couldn't find it in the sources he listed.

Eventually I found it in his own article about Kizilsu's 2020 planning. archive.is/q8ycf

Yeah, when he copied 6.4‰ into the text, it magically becomes 6.14‰.

Using his 6.14‰ reduction, we know that he must have calculated -3.14‰ (2020) from a baseline of 3‰ (2019), which matches with the gov report he linked (birth rate 6.8‰, natural growth rate 3‰) web.archive.org/web/2021051120…

But in a chart of his report right above this discussion, he listed the natural growth rate of Kizilsu in 2019 as 3.57‰ rather than 3‰.

Then here comes Zenz's calculation of birth/growth rate reduction, which has been debunked by many discussions about his previous reports. 👇

Using his numbers, 3‰ reduced by 6.14‰ should be 3‰ x (1 - 6.14‰)

But for Zenz, it's 3‰ - 6.14‰ 😑

How do we know his calculation is wrong?

Bc In the report that listed the 3‰ growth rate, the birth rate is 6.8‰. And based on a 7.13‰ reduction (from the report he got the growth rate reduction), the birth rate for 2020 would be

6.8‰ - 7.13‰ = -0.33‰. Negative!

So basically, regarding that -3.14‰ planned growth rate Zenz calculated, from the source he used to his method of calculation, there is not a single thing that's correct.

So rigorous!

The purpose of the thread is to shine a light on Zenz's "research" methodology and work ethics, especially if he keeps emphasizing that his work is "peer-reviewed" this time.

It is not meant to concede the bigger issue here 👇

There are many discussions about that before, and here is a good overview 👇

The biggest problem with his "research" is that it is obviously driven by his far-right propaganda 👇. And just bc he is screaming "China bad", MSM don't bother fact checking and blindly help him proliferate his narrative

Comments in the thread concern whether Zenz's interpretation about the reduction could also be reasonable.

But as sharply pointed out by 👇, the original gov doc used "同比下降", which is a term specifically refers to YoY (Year-Over-Year) decline

Though it's not common to use ‰ to represent YoY change, it doesn't alter the nature of how it should be calculated or how it should be interpreted. The same formula applies even if the index in concern is % or ‰