Michael Atherton wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote:Well, I'm not baffled because of a lack of understanding about statistics or a healthy paranoia about facts presented in the media. After passing 2 courses in statistics and 1 in probability (and a B.S. in C.S. ), there's not much in surveys or polls that gets by me. I'm sure that the video you refer to would be instructive, highly so to many people. There's also a small paperback book called "*Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809058405/qid=1085713267/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2226227-4455847?v=glance&s=books>* " by John Allen Paulos that would be extremely useful to those who don't understand simple statistics.
I'm baffled at how Mr. Atherton draws these conclusions.
I'm worried that Mr. Johnson is baffled by my conclusions!
After teaching statistics and Introduction to Computers
for a number of years I've become concerned that the
persuasion techniques used in the media have risen above
the threshold of the average citizen to detect them.
Although I don't agree with his politics, I'm becoming
more convinced that everyone should watch, "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media." I do not agree with
his conclusions, but it might be beneficial if everyone was
a little more paranoid about facts presented in the media.
I think Greg Abbott's analysis is more accurate than Michael Hohmann's in this case.The survery asked if people supported a smoking ban, and 72% said yes. That's hardly surprising given that roughly 70% to 80% of the population is non-smoking.
First let me say that although I agree with Mr. Hohmann's analysis,
I don't think that the major problem here is sampling bias.
Why would you be forced to answer Yes? Nobody is holding a gun to your head. The obvious answer you should give would be No if you don't favor that kind of government intrusion.I'll try and illustrate my objection with a simple example.
"Who would you vote for in the next election, George Bush or Saddam Hussein?"
If asked in isolation the responses to this question might give an inaccurate assessment of the public's support for President Bush. Now consider the question:
"Do you favor a citywide smoking ban in most indoor public places?"
If this is a forced choice question without any other alternative
proposals offered it might give an inaccurate assessment of
public opinion (even if all citizens were surveyed). For
example, I would be forced to answer "Yes," but it would
not accurately reflect my position.
Yes, the wording to survey questions is critical, but I don't think the problem you worry about in this case amounts to any significant difference. We should all take it and the media with a grain of salt. But I think you've gone overboard on finding fault with this story. It's no worse than average.
If members of the group realized that the results do notBy that definition, either 100% of the polls I've seen in the popular press are unscrupulous, or your stringency test is too extreme. No survey, sample or poll is 100% accurate. Those taken of people's opinions are even less so than say sampling an assembly line to detect flaws. We have to assume the research firm knows as much about statistics, sampling error, and so forth as you and I. If there is evidence that this particular firm doesn't do good samples and use good math, well then, let's have it. That would certainly be grounds for questioning this survey, and I'll do it with you.
accurately reflect public opinion, then it is unscrupulous.
I think that it is the responsibility of the those requesting
the survey and those performing it to insure that the results
accurately reflect what is true of public opinion. I don't think that this is true in this case.
If 55% percent said yes, I might be concerned with whether it meant anything. But 72% is a large enough margin that most any reasonable error is not going to matter. Further, the obvious test for any reader to make when reading it is "does it sound reasonable given a basic set of facts" -- like the fact that 70% to 80% of the population are non-smokers. So it passes the smell test, if you will.
It's definitely worth thinking about in a serious fashion and not just accepting stories and surveys like this on face value. I agree that it appears the average citizen is not aware enough about what's going on -- though whether that's because the sophistication has risen as you suggest or whether it's more a result of apathy, short attention span, instant gratification, spoiled baby boomers or other cultural shifts is open to question. One conundrum: what would make the Star Tribune writer any more clever than the average citizen and thus capable of such sophisticated persuasion?
I'm as willing as the next guy to entertain conspiracy theories, but would say I'd far more believe it of tobacco company machinations, than of a bunch of doctors and newspaper writers.
I think it's a valid "which way the wind is blowing" measurement for how Minneapolis residents feel about smoking. Accurate to 3 decimal places? No.
Chris Johnson / Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
