A new Goldman State Podcast drops every Friday!

Because “pseudo-pscience” was problematic to pronounce

By Ed Goldman

Those of you who’ve furnished your home, office, ADU or Quonset hut with a fainting couch may need it for today’s sermon, which includes a nearly profane portmanteau. The topic is my increasing disdain for our uber-reliance on analytics, metrics, physics and demographics to discover what we, as hapless consumers or employees, want or don’t want. 

I’ve named these statistical, often easily debunked data Bullshetrics®.

If you’ll recall, this past fall pollsters told us that U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was going to become the U.S. President even though it was “going to be a close one.” Wrong on both counts. 

They’d also told us eight years earlier that Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump, the same guy who beat Harris in 2024. Clinton did get more of the “popular” vote but Donald J. trumped in the Electoral College.

In both instances we were told all sorts of details about the voters who were going to ensure Harris’ and Clinton’s elections—where we lived, how much we earned, whether we had college degrees and our favorite Ben & Jerry’s ice cream flavor. But, as pollsters discovered when autopsying their flops, there was also the possibility that some people didn’t agree to exit interviews, submit to telephone surveys or—and this was the X factor—lied. To put this in market research language, the “margins” for error were more like polo fields (those are the largest sports venues).  

Some of this could apply to the fabled Nielsen ratings, as well. They told us that Dick Cavett, the well-read talk show host, had lousy ratings, so at least three of his shows were canceled over a period of about 15 years.

The problem, as Cavett pointed out, was that viewers whose preferences Nielsen measured had volunteered for the monitoring of their TV habits, either by allowing an electronic device to be attached to their sets or by keeping a paper diary of the shows they watched. Cavett sniffed that he couldn’t imagine any of his audience base participating in that sort of survey. 

Though that might sound like acidic grapes on Cavett’s part, I think he was correct. But my only proof is anecdotal, to wit: I was one of his fans who declined Nielsen’s request on three separate occasions to keep a record of my viewing.

Since we’re now in an era when supermarkets know all about us without their having to ask even a single question, I suppose “resistance is futile.” You may recall that statement being immortalized by the outer-space race “the Borg” on “Star Trek,” a TV show whose consistently so-so Nielsen ratings caused its cancelation after three years. Fans were outraged—and made enough noise about it that the series resurfaced, initially with the same cast, as a series of highly popular big-screen, big-budget movies. It even returned to television in a variety of spin-offs. 

Most amusing of all is that reruns of the original show have proved to be immensely popular in syndication and on streaming platforms. Even though that didn’t eliminate the ratings system, it definitely put Nielsen in a half-Nelson. (For younger viewers and those with taste, this is a wrestling hold.)