The New York Times did this, back in 2016. Though, with Trump supporters and Duck Dynasty (vis-a-vis shows like Modern Family & Empire). nytimes.com/interactive/20…
https://twitter.com/ZaknafeinDC/status/1306381350564507648
It's the premise of #BigData. To riff off Aristotle's "give me a child until he is 7, and I will show you the man", in modern times, it's: "Give me your data, and I will show you who I believe you are, and push you in the direction of who I want you to be."
As an example, if you're getting election-related calls, texts, Facebook ads, etc., you're getting them because you're on a list. Data decided which list(s) you should be on.
The strength & expertise of an analyst determined whether data was right to put you there ... and what else should happen to you afterwards (e.g. follow up, workflow triggers, etc.)
Data science is notoriously non-inclusive & non-diverse. Your analyst should ask questions, see gaps, connect dots, predict behavior, etc. The persons you put in that role matter greatly. They predict and/or determine outcomes. (See also: *who* ran polls in 2016 & got it wrong.)
Because: Analysts represent data points in and of themselves. When you don't diversify your analysts you are, in essence, skewing your data. Your outcomes reflect limited ways of thinking because you've limited the idea generation process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
