# Studies show that...



## cuchuflete

Many discussion forums, this one included, are covered with
references to either studies, or worse yet, to websites that have references to "studies".  If one has lots of time and energy, it's sometimes possible to track these vague references back to a source.  I've tried it a few times.  More often than not, the research design of the study/poll/questionnaire is nowhere to be seen.  Even when it is, there is almost never any information about the conduct of the study.  
Who did it?  How was it done--by telephone, internet, personal interview?  Did the methods prejudice the outcome?
Was the research designed to be scientifically reliable?  Within what limits?  Was the design flawed, through the exclusion or inclusion of people apt to reply to a question in any given way?

Usually, we cannot find enough information to make a sensible judgment.  And yet, there is something that sounds 'valid' or even authoritative about that nice little phrase, "Studies show that....".

What do you think we should do with unverified, or even unverifiable citations of such studies?   Should we just reply that we have seen others that are contradictory?  Should we challenge the poster to give, at very least, a personal opinion on the accuracy of the study, and to tell us why he or she believes the study to be valid?

To illustrate my concern, I've seen many studies that tell us that the majority of discussion board participants give some credence to references to research, without having seen the research design.  This allows both honest members and mountebanks to use such references at will, and to have some influence--deserved or otherwise--on fellow thread participants.  

Is there a thread topic in this rant?  Try this:  _Does a forum or newspaper or blog lose credibility by frequent, undocumented --- or only indirect, references to "studies show..." sources?  If so, what should be done about it?  _


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Is there a thread topic in this rant? Try this: _Does a forum or newspaper or blog lose credibility by frequent, undocumented --- or only indirect, references to "studies show..." sources? If so, what should be done about it? _


Studious study shows that overemphasis on quoting dubious studies is a direct reflection of the inherent intelligence of the studies poster.
I think that it is stupifyingly bad manners to post constant links to dubious sites with no cogent covering comment.
I simply refuse to follow links and I have enough grounding in science and mathematics to understand that I can spin a survey in any direction I choose.
There are any number of devices used to skew surveys.
Wildly divergent data can be included or excluded as is deemed fit.
Average or mean figures can be calculated in a variety of ways.
Leading questions can preface the core questions of the survey.
Specific groups can be tested to obtain desired results.
I could be surveyed in relation to the economic impact of smoking fish in Denmark and I could give truthful results but they would be meaningless to a real survey.

Surveys should suggest that surveys published on the internet are almost always shown to support the views of the poster of the survey.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

Brandon Carter is famous for (among other hobbies, like going to college with Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking) the Anthropic Principle. Part of it relates to the problem of sampling. Is it a proper sampling? Are we covering all the bases? Is it a large enough slice of reality that allows us to make a proper generalisation?
I think the answer is no, but "studies show that" I haven't enough data yet to confirm...

It is my opinion that an electronic community (blog, forums, etc.) could very well lose credibility if the posters spend their time linking to websites in a tautological approach, believing that they create some kind of reality with endless repetitions of similar statements.
But I also think that it is necessary and desirable to have some attributions so that we can gauge how far away from the beaten path our interlocutor has strayed in pursuit of the point he's trying to make.
If a casual reader of the posts in this community (for example) were to read a few of those posts and see that we're all just full of crap, then the forum would lose credibility. On the other hand, if that same casual reader could see that there are those who insist on saying things like "studies show that..." and really don't know what they're talking about, and other forum members take the time and effort to tell them off in no uncertain terms, then I think the casual reader might feel good about the integrity of a forum that insists that people back up their remarks with facts, or that they declare them just personal opinions.

I have seen some forums where the topics are mainly academic (astronomy, popular science, whatever) where people post links and say things like "see? I believe everything I read here, click!" and other people go, "Oooooh, cool, I believe everything you say!" And the people that actually say things like, "you know what? That link doesn't make much sense and it's logic is faulty..." and everybody boos and hisses and tells him to shut up, can't he see how cool was the link?
Those kind of forums lose credibility quickly.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> Those kind of forums lose credibility quickly.


This forum does not face that problem.
The individual posters of spurious links will be identified for what they are and I will not be bitten twice by following links from posters that I do not respect. There is no opint. It is obvious that the link will support the twisted views of the poster and the only knowledge I will be likely to gain is how to remove another virus.

.,,


----------



## DavyBCN

A terrific subject for a thread, and I cannot add very much to what has already been said. Just one point which I believe is increasingly dangerous, hopefully not too prevalent in the area of language - but who knows. Lobbying groups, especially those linked to what may be termed "controversial" industries and political groups, routinely set up foundations or institutions with academic sounding titles in order to give a false semblance of authority to their interests. These bodies then publish a range of studies which, surprise surprise, "prove" their case. As mentioned above, such studies then circulate and gain a life of their own as fact. Virtually impossible to stop or to disprove.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> Is there a thread topic in this rant? Try this: _Does a forum or newspaper or blog lose credibility by frequent, undocumented --- or only indirect, references to "studies show..." sources? If so, what should be done about it? _


 Does this forum have credibility to begin with? Our format is the same as discussion boards that are centered around hobbies, celebrity dogs and other twaddle. Yet we posit ourselves as a repository of expertise. Do people who visit here really think of us in that way?

I tend to take any postings in CD with a grain of salt: they are merely unexpert opinions... and you all know the old saying about opinions.    Any "surveys" that are cited are usually dubious, so I don't pay them any mind.  

If someone were to post dubious data in one of the language forums, however, that would be a different story -- they would and should be taken to task.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Don Fenix,

Interesting comments...





fenixpollo said:


> Does this forum have credibility to begin with? There seems to be an assumption of good faith and sincerity shared among most participants, unless and until it is compromised by straying more than two standard deviations from the mean of common sense on a regular basis.  In other words, most people are worth reading, and their writings worth thinking about.
> 
> 
> I tend to take any postings in CD with a grain of salt: Even the ones proposing conspiracy theories to explain the decline of the buggy whip industry?  Shall we apply the salt remedy to this post of yours too, or are some posts saltier than others?
> 
> Seriously, there are a few Johnny-one-notes who deserve an entire salt mine, and many other foreros who have established their trustworthyness in both CD and in the language forums.
> 
> Any "surveys" that are cited are usually dubious, so I don't pay them any mind.  Do you point out that they are dubious, for the benefit of folks who may not yet have discovered this? Should you?  If you don't contest those apparently 'factual' sources overtly, do you risk giving the impression that you might agree with them?
> 
> If someone were to post dubious data in one of the language forums, however, that would be a different story -- they would and should be taken to task. This thread asks whether the same high standard should be applied in CD.  What's your view on that?


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> Does this forum have credibility to begin with? Our format is the same as discussion boards that are centered around hobbies, celebrity dogs and other twaddle. Yet we posit ourselves as a repository of expertise. Do people who visit here really think of us in that way?
> 
> I tend to take any postings in CD with a grain of salt: they are merely unexpert opinions... and you all know the old saying about opinions.  Any "surveys" that are cited are usually dubious, so I don't pay them any mind.
> 
> If someone were to post dubious data in one of the language forums, however, that would be a different story -- they would and should be taken to task.


I do not think it fair to compare this forum with twaddle forums.
Many of the topics discussed here are valid topics and are subjected to more peer review here than at other sites I have encountered.
The moderating is far more intrusive here and mugs are rapidly slapped around the ears.
This pointed thread is aimed squarely at posters of dubious links not at all posters of links.

As an aside may I ask an opinion of a thread that is started with or a post that contains only;



> Have you seen this link?  Post a link.
> Please comment on the contents of the link.


 
.,,


----------



## ireney

I had a whole semester during which I was taught by a very, _very_ strict professor about social psychology and what one should do if he/she wanted to make a proper survey and the ways studies are falsified either intentionally or unintentionally (many people start with a thesis they want to prove and they read the results the way the wish).

He even sent us to what we all called a "fool's errant" when we wanted to be nice about it. Same questionaire, same number of people asked a few other parameters where the same too etc. While it was tiresome and boring (I mean we _knew_ what he wanted to prove!) it was really interesting to see the difference in the results.

I guess I could have just said that I am extremely suspicious to say the least when I read one of those links.

Now as to the reaction? 

I must admit I am prejudiced against the posting of numerous links. Posting a link to say that "look, I've read this article and it got me thinking: Should we trust studies or not? I believe that....." is OK by my standards. 
You just show what prompted you to start the thread.

a. _Using_ studies of questionable validity (?) to support your opinion or instead of voicing your opinion is plain wrong. I would like a limit to be put at least at the number of times a single poster can do it.

b. Since the mods are a wee bit busy, I would like each poster to actually hunt for the data(?) on the survey/poll/study him/herself and post them, even if the source is to be trusted implicitly (for instance I would trust any statistic by the National Statistical Service of Greece but I would like to know then when and how of the statistic anyway.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> Any "surveys" that are cited are usually dubious, so I don't pay them any mind. Do you point out that they are dubious, for the benefit of folks who may not yet have discovered this? Should you? If you don't contest those apparently 'factual' sources overtly, do you risk giving the impression that you might agree with them?
> 
> If someone were to post dubious data in one of the language forums, however, that would be a different story -- they would and should be taken to task. This thread asks whether the same high standard should be applied in CD. What's your view on that?


  I am not in the habit of pointing out dubious sources, though I sometimes do. I should. Perhaps if we raised our standards in CD, we might up our crediblity a tick. 


. said:


> As an aside may I ask an opinion of a thread that is started with or a post that contains only;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen this link? Post a link. Please comment on the contents of the link.
Click to expand...

 I think this is the exact same kind of thread question that, if it appears in a language forum, is considered a waste of time and is lambasted for being contextless. The same thing should happen here in CD.





ireney said:


> b. Since the mods are a wee bit busy, I would like each poster to actually hunt for the data(?) on the survey/poll/study him/herself and post them, even if the source is to be trusted implicitly (for instance I would trust any statistic by the National Statistical Service of Greece but I would like to know then when and how of the statistic anyway.


 I tend not to follow links to articles, mostly because it's a time issue, but also because it becomes tiresome to read entire articles to find whatever point the thread starter wanted me to see. I agree with ireney that the poster should quote (judiciously) from the article and post a link to his/her source.


----------



## ireney

Oh! May I add that I absolutely loath links to pages that you have to be a registered user to see?


----------



## Cracker Jack

cuchuflete said:


> Many discussion forums, this one included, are covered with
> references to either studies, or worse yet, to websites that have references to "studies". If one has lots of time and energy, it's sometimes possible to track these vague references back to a source. I've tried it a few times. More often than not, the research design of the study/poll/questionnaire is nowhere to be seen. Even when it is, there is almost never any information about the conduct of the study.
> Who did it? How was it done--by telephone, internet, personal interview? Did the methods prejudice the outcome?
> Was the research designed to be scientifically reliable? Within what limits? Was the design flawed, through the exclusion or inclusion of people apt to reply to a question in any given way?
> 
> Usually, we cannot find enough information to make a sensible judgment. And yet, there is something that sounds 'valid' or even authoritative about that nice little phrase, "Studies show that....".
> 
> What do you think we should do with unverified, or even unverifiable citations of such studies? Should we just reply that we have seen others that are contradictory? Should we challenge the poster to give, at very least, a personal opinion on the accuracy of the study, and to tell us why he or she believes the study to be valid?
> 
> To illustrate my concern, I've seen many studies that tell us that the majority of discussion board participants give some credence to references to research, without having seen the research design. This allows both honest members and mountebanks to use such references at will, and to have some influence--deserved or otherwise--on fellow thread participants.
> 
> Is there a thread topic in this rant? Try this: _Does a forum or newspaper or blog lose credibility by frequent, undocumented --- or only indirect, references to "studies show..." sources? If so, what should be done about it? _


 
In view of this, I can only suggest that those who cite references should avoid spurious, run-of-the-mill, unsubstantiated and unauthenticated sources.  Sadly, in this forum, some of the posters often resort to a particular website (everybody knows this) to strengthen their allegations or cite reference.

Even the website claims that some items have not been verified.  In giving citations, one should resort to published articles, if the arguments presented are relatively new and unrecognized to be true.  These articles can be found in journals on-line.  They are scientifically founded by experimentation and thorugh work-ups.  Some even undergo blinds and double-blinds to eliminate biases.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> To illustrate my concern, I've seen many studies that tell us that the majority of discussion board participants give some credence to references to research, without having seen the research design.  This allows both honest members and mountebanks to use such references at will, and to have some influence--deserved or otherwise--on fellow thread participants.



It all boils down to ownership. If people give some credence to references to research without having seen the research design, that's their problem. It has nothing, or at least, very little to do with the honesty or dishonesty of the person who makes those references. And this not only applies to the internet, the most unreliable place to find credible references to credible research. It applies to reading books or magazines; watching TV or movies, etc. Some people are too lazy or too dumb or too impressionable (the list continues ad infinitum), and they uncritically believe anything and everything they read or hear. If someone volunteers to think for them or become their intellectual guardian angel, well, it's his/her choice. 

If people don't do their homework and any of these references we are discussing exerts a small or huge influence on the way they think or behave, well, there's only one person to blame. And if they get up and go to the bathroorm, the mirror will reflect back univocally who it is.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> It all boils down to ownership. If people give some credence to references to research without having seen the research design, that's their problem. It has nothing, or at least, very little to do with the honesty or dishonesty of the person who makes those references. And this not only applies to the internet, the most unreliable place to find credible references to credible research. It applies to reading books or magazines; watching TV or movies, etc. Some people are too lazy or too dumb or too impressionable (the list continues ad infinitum), and they uncritically believe anything and everything they read or hear. If someone volunteers to think for them or become their intellectual guardian angel, well, it's his/her choice.
> 
> If people don't do their homework and any of these references we are discussing exerts a small or huge influence on the way they think or behave, well, there's only one person to blame. And if they get up and go to the bathroorm, the mirror will reflect back univocally who it is.


I would prefer to think that I have built up enough credibility in WR for people to form the opinion that I have researched any link I post and that my reputation will stand or fall by accurate or falacious links I make.

It is not fair for me to post slanted or canted links and then blame the viewer of the posts who went there believing what I had told them to be true.

There are more than a hundred ways to tell a lie and posting spurious links dressed up as fact is just another sleazing greazy lie.

.,,


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

> To illustrate my concern, I've seen many studies that tell us that...


 Good illustration! 
To address your questions now...
I think each fore@ is making a personal scale of reliability on each other forer@: Machin never says crap, Chose few, Truc often, Muche always... We just avoid reading posts from the less reliable (or only if taken as an entertainment as I do) and at least we avoid following their useless links. Of course, once this step is done, the same sorting process runs for websites from links: known and reliable, known but don't know if reliable, don't known but could be reliable, don't known but seems not reliable at all, known to be not reliable at all... 
And should you prevent others that your personal warning lights are on? I don't think it is really useful. This will increase the controversy of the thread and make ad to it. Precisely what the poster wanted i.e. having more potential visitors to their website.  Moreover, seeing a reliable forer@ arguing (even to say the website or the survey is crap) into a thread like this might switch off someone else's personal warning...


----------



## Everness

. said:


> There are more than a hundred ways to tell a lie and posting spurious links dressed up as fact is just another sleazing greazy lie.
> 
> .,,



I think Borges would rejoice with your comment. I strongly recommend that you read his short story "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius." It's a short story about an encyclopedia project that changes the world - literally. Objects from the fictional world presented in the book infest the real world, eventually subsuming it. Yes, my dear mate: fiction creates fact.

Enjoy!

http://aegis.ateneo.net/fted/tlontext.htm


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> I think Borges would rejoice with your comment. I strongly recommend that you read his short story "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius." It's a short story about an encyclopedia project that changes the world - literally. Objects from the fictional world presented in the book infest the real world, eventually subsuming it. Yes, my dear mate: fiction creates fact.
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> http://aegis.ateneo.net/fted/tlontext.htm


This is one of the most amusing responses I have ever encountered but humour aside I must most clearly dismiss your fallacious assumption that I would do more than contemplate the notion of possibly filing any intention of more than thinking about following any unreliable links.

Who is Borges? I am familiar with the art of the great pianist Victor Borges.

I literarily could not resist.
How is it not possible to change the world not *literally*.
Literally is the one word that I hve yet to see used in a manner other than as a redundant expletive.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

An aside to an aside to a lateral reference: Jorge Luis Borges was an Argentine writer of short fiction and other works, who loved to use labyrinths as both metaphors and plot devices. 

One of his protagonists--a police detective-- followed an especially difficult one...to his own death at the hands of the criminal he sought.

Interestingly, those who make excessive use of links, trying to give the appearance of credibility, may get equally wrapped up in their own knickers, and suffer a similar 'hoist by his own petard' fate.

I love it when life emulates fiction.

Warm thanks to Karine for the wink at the prank.

cuchu


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> b. Since the mods are a wee bit busy, I would like each poster to actually hunt for the data(?) on the survey/poll/study him/herself and post them, even if the source is to be trusted implicitly



fenixpollo already addressed this issue: 



fenixpollo said:


> Does this forum have credibility to begin with? Our format is the same as discussion boards that are centered around hobbies, celebrity dogs and other twaddle. Yet we posit ourselves as a repository of expertise. Do people who visit here really think of us in that way?



My answer would be no but I guess I'm in the minority. This is a cultural forum not The National Academies. Requesting that foreros hunt for data on the survey/poll/study and post it is absurd. What's next? Each post will have an abstract and a reference section? Not even moderators should be expected to screen studies or polls. They aren't intellectual babysitters for the lazy, the dumb or the impressionable. If you don't like the results of a poll or what a study allegedly demonstrates, just disregard them. We won't be contributing to the destruction of Western civilization if we take that path.

Who are we? We are just a bunch of lay people sharing opinions on an array of topics. Sometimes we back them up or illustrate them with studies or polls. End of story. If people think that stating opinions without any reference to studies or polls makes more sense, well, it's just one opinion among many others.  

Let's not get carried away in our pursuit of the truth and the denunciation of lies, especially when someone's opinion doesn't agree with mine.


----------



## fenixpollo

Everness said:


> Each post will have an abstract and a reference section?


  If a poster's point can't be made in a couple of paragraphs, then he's trying too hard.  All I'm suggesting is to quote a section of the text that's being cited, to give us a quick overview of the citation.  Those who want to dive in deeper can follow the link and read the whole article, or whatever the source is.  

I like to do that in any case, because I assume that the url that I'm linking to will be dead long before a particular thread goes away.  I hope that's the case, anyway.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Let's not get carried away in our pursuit of the truth and the denunciation of lies, especially when someone's opinion doesn't agree with mine.


I will denounce lies and liars for as long as I suck breath.
Liars are the bullies of the world and can drain the beauty from a rainbow.
Liars and lies make people weep.
I am fascinated by a person who would think that we should do nothing about lies and liars when all that is necessary is to hoist them by their own petard.
I like the fiction about the master criminal being able to lure a cop to his death but it is just fiction and probably not even very good fiction when viewed through the eyes that have seen a thing or two of reality.
.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> Some people are *too lazy or too dumb or too impressionable* (the list continues ad infinitum), and they uncritically believe anything and everything they read or hear.



I suppose it's within reason to assume that "the too lazy or too dumb or too impressionable" might, at times, include not only someone who sees a reference to a link that in turn references a study, but also the person who posts such a link.  

If source checking is so unreasonable, then should we just invite everyone to post crap?  How about a middle ground?
If someone is going to post a link containing studies, or pointing to yet another source, wouldn't common sense and common courtesy dictate that the poster tell us whether he or she has, in fact, actually looked at the data and made a personal determination as to its reliability? 

No, don't tell me that the very act of posting constitutes an endorsement backed by some effort at verification!  That's not credible.  

If forero X posts links, or links that reference other links/sources, without checking the root reference, that is lazy and potentially deceptive.  Casual, benign, unmalicious laziness and deception are neither better nor worse than intentional misdirection.

If we accept the declaration that readers who accept what they read without checking are lazy, dumb, impressionable "(the list continues ad infinitum)", then shouldn't we ask if the person who posts the links is of that group?  Why should we give any benefit of the doubt to someone who posts a naked link, without a brief summary to show that they have at least read the material they are citing?  Why should we assume that the material is something other than a satire site or some lame, emotionally arrested, fact free jumble of rants and raves?

This really isn't so difficult at all.  If we are going to post signs pointing to "studies show that...",
then we ought to take a few seconds to say that we have, or have not, actually looked at what we are trotting out as part of our own argument.  When people cite "studies" without doing that, I will ask them why they think the material is worthy of consideration.  If they don't reply, they will have done much to undermine their credibility--to a level well below that appropriate to a sensible, non-academic, layman's conversation.


----------



## Everness

fenixpollo said:


> If a poster's point can't be made in a couple of paragraphs, then he's trying too hard.  All I'm suggesting is to quote a section of the text that's being cited, to give us a quick overview of the citation.  Those who want to dive in deeper can follow the link and read the whole article, or whatever the source is.
> 
> I like to do that in any case, because I assume that the url that I'm linking to will be dead long before a particular thread goes away.  I hope that's the case, anyway.



Ok.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> Many discussion forums, this one included, are covered with
> references to either studies, or worse yet, to websites that have references to "studies". If one has lots of time and energy, it's sometimes possible to track these vague references back to a source. I've tried it a few times. More often than not, the research design of the study/poll/questionnaire is nowhere to be seen. Even when it is, there is almost never any information about the conduct of the study.
> Who did it? How was it done--by telephone, internet, personal interview? Did the methods prejudice the outcome?
> Was the research designed to be scientifically reliable? Within what limits? Was the design flawed, through the exclusion or inclusion of people apt to reply to a question in any given way?


Studies are biased by essence. As someone who designs and conducts studies and analyzes studies made by others as a part of her job, I should know (or should I? This is actually another common way of presenting an opinion as an indisputable fact: "I have personal experience of it so trust me". My experience of one thing doesn't mean I can speak for the whole lot - but that's outside the scope of this thread I'm afraid  )
Studies are craft works, and as such, they are full of flaws. Which is perfectly fine when you are aware of it; the danger lies when unaware or deliberately dishonest people take out one figure to say "See? Figures can't lie".
Studies are dangerous and should always be handed out with a warning sign  "handle with care!" 


cuchuflete said:


> _Does a forum or newspaper or blog lose credibility by frequent, undocumented --- or only indirect, references to "studies show..." sources? If so, what should be done about it? _





fenixpollo said:


> Does this forum have credibility to begin with?


I don't think we have any credibility either. I don't mean that people here are untrustworthy; but in the Culture forum, many types of subjects are discussed, and no one here can claim to be an expert on each of these topics. Our credibility as a forum goes to discussions involving languages; outside of that, we are simply presenting our opinions, and our status there is that of the man in the street. If we were all graduates from a politics school for instance, we would probably have "some" credibility to discuss political topics. We as a forum don't have credibility on a particular cultural topic. We might be plausible as human beings but that's pretty much it I'm afraid  

I think it's more about reliability than credibility as Karine said: by browsing the forums regularly you build your own opinion on its different members, hence will value more what some of them say. But then this doesn't work for occasional browsers of the place... 
In my opinion (but I have no studies to back it up!) the greatest value of the CD forum from an occasional browser viewpoint, is the presence of opinions of all over the world, all at hand. _Opinions from average Joes and Janes from all over the world_ - how's that for a description of the CD forum?


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> No, don't tell me that the very act of posting constitutes an endorsement backed by some effort at verification!  That's not credible.



I hate when people are either able to read my mind and/or to predict my responses.   It might not be credible for you but it is for me. You might have realized that, for instance, I use polls to introduce a topic and not simply to back up an opinion of mine. A good example would be my now defunct thread "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?" Did I use a shady pollster?

Here are my introductory lines.

_Apparently one in 3 Americans do. 

According to a recent poll conducted from July 6 through 24 at the *Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio *more than one-third of Americans suspect federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East._

Why wouldn't I trust a poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio? Should we only trust polls conducted by one of the Ivies? Anyways, I think I know what's going on here (at least with this particular poll). Some of us can't fathom the idea that 1 in 3 Americans believe in conspiracy theories. "It can't be true. I'm an American and I don't believe in conspiracy theories. None of my relatives or friends believes in conspiracy theories. Therefore, there's something wrong with the poll. It's not representative of the American soul. We are an enlightened country. I don't want folks abroad to think that we are a bunch of loonies." So we attack the poll, and if this doesn't work we attack polls in general, and if that doesn't work we attack the person who posts these biased, unscientific, unreliable, f*cking polls.

Again, we need to distinguish between what ireney and fenixpollo requested. One request makes sense; the other one doesn't. 



fenixpollo said:


> All I'm suggesting is to quote a section of the text that's being cited, to give us a quick overview of the citation.  Those who want to dive in deeper can follow the link and read the whole article, or whatever the source is.





ireney said:


> b. Since the mods are a wee bit busy, I would like each poster to actually hunt for the data(?) on the survey/poll/study him/herself and post them, even if the source is to be trusted implicitly (for instance I would trust any statistic by the National Statistical Service of Greece but I would like to know then when and how of the statistic anyway.


----------



## french4beth

I don't think that anyone is 100% trustworthy (no offense, foreros!). After all, we're all human!

If I post a link, it's _not_ to a "I read it on the internet, so it _must_ be true" website. I hope to read posts that have been thoughtfully researched, but if I don't, it's not the end of the world.

When at university, one of my political science course books was a book called something along the lines of "_How to Lie with Statistics_." Enough said.

I tend to believe studies that match my personal beliefs, but I try to keep an open mind. I hope to find accurate, pertinent information if I decide to follow a link.

Sometimes I can't find anything online to support what I'm saying, so that's what I write in my posting. I occasionally provide links to wikipedia as a last resort, and hope that anyone who visits wikipedia knows that they're going there at their own risk.

_Caveat emptor._


----------



## DavyBCN

I'm afraid that suggesting that the *Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio *is a reputable source would mean nothing to the majority of users of this forum outside the USA.  Nothing to do with the stature or otherwise of the University of Ohio. I must admit to a problem with any institute which has the name of a person or organisation in front of it when related to an academic organisation. Very good people donate to academia with the purest of interests, but so do individuals, commercial and political organisations with very specific agendas. How likely it is that any studies would be issued which disproved their agendas?


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Why wouldn't I trust a poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio? Should we only trust polls conducted by one of the Ivies? Anyways, I think I know what's going on here (at least with this particular poll). Some of us can't fathom the idea that 1 in 3 Americans believe in conspiracy theories. "It can't be true. I'm an American and I don't believe in conspiracy theories. None of my relatives or friends believes in conspiracy theories. Therefore, there's something wrong with the poll. It's not representative of the American soul. We are an enlightened country. *I don't want folks abroad to think that we are a bunch of loonies*." So we attack the poll, and if this doesn't work we attack polls in general, and if that doesn't work we attack the person who posts these biased, unscientific, unreliable, f*cking polls.
> 
> Again, we need to distinguish between what ireney and fenixpollo requested. One request makes sense; the other one doesn't.


Some of your posts are making it rather difficult for all to continue to learn from you.

You seem upset that a poll has identified 1 in 3 of your compatriots as conspiracy believers and you do not believe the survey as is your right but you use further surveys to establish that other surveys are not valid.  You use many surveys to try to prove that selected surveys are not to your taste.

Most people are aware that voice of the people surveys are nothing but the opinions of the person on the street as seen through the spin of whatever particular group conducted the survey but peppering your argument with links to surveys or tests and then laughing when a person gets a virus from such a link is not guaranteed to endear you to many people.

You seem to have a good heart but ill-defined questions and slippery arguments combined with your stated desire to 


> So we attack the poll, and if this doesn't work we attack polls in general, and if that doesn't work we attack the person who posts these biased, unscientific, unreliable, f*cking polls.


can take the fun out of the whole WR experience.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

There is a danger of sounding persuasive even with data that _appears _reliable.  In a recent thread about race in America and associated topics, there was a link.  The link presented some sweeping statements about results of recent polls.  It then actually gave a little information about those polls, including sampling methods.  Nearly every sample...and they were samples of a few hundred to a little over one thousand persons, consciously, by design, oversampled minority respondents.  

Then what happened? The linked site made sweeping declarations about how Americans, in general, perceive certain questions, based on recent polls.

Here is an example:



> *     Gallup Poll*.  N=1,385 adults nationwide      (MoE ± 3), including, *with oversamples*, 821      non-Hispanic whites (MoE ± 4), 241 blacks (MoE      ± 7), and 266 Hispanics (MoE ±      7). Interviewing was June 12-15, 2003, for      non-Hispanic whites, and June 12-18, 2003, for      blacks and Hispanics.​ "Do      you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial      minorities?"
> *Favor* *Oppose* * Unsure*
> % % %
> ALL 49 43 8
> Non-Hispanic whites 44 49 7
> Blacks 70 21 9
> Hispanics 63 28 9


  This very unscientific sample reflects the views of a population in which Blacks and Hispanics represent about 36% of the sampled universe.  That happens to be different from the universe about which the comments were made.  It is deceptive.    The Gallup organzation is well-respected and competent.  However, without looking at the poll data and research and sampling design, one can easily draw false conclusions. For those are are not indolent, dumb, or impressionable, have a look for yourselves:  http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
Those who are too lazy (that's me, most of the time!) can either accept the broad generalities as credible, or assume that they are not, based on whatever they, the readers,  bring to the conversation.

PS- a Margin of error or MoE of plus or minus 7% is very large for a sample of this size, and is usually a warning to a statistician to take the results with either extreme caution, or a large grain of salt.


----------



## Everness

french4beth said:


> *1.* I don't think that anyone is 100% trustworthy (no offense, foreros!). After all, we're all human!
> 
> *2 *If I post a link, it's _not_ to a "I read it on the internet, so it _must_ be true" website. I hope to read posts that have been thoughtfully researched, but if I don't, it's not the end of the world.
> 
> *3.* When at university, one of my political science course books was a book called something along the lines of "_How to Lie with Statistics_." Enough said.
> 
> *4.* I tend to believe studies that match my personal beliefs, but I try to keep an open mind. I hope to find accurate, pertinent information if I decide to follow a link.
> 
> *5.* Sometimes I can't find anything online to support what I'm saying, so that's what I write in my posting. I occasionally provide links to wikipedia as a last resort, and hope that anyone who visits wikipedia knows that they're going there at their own risk.
> 
> _Caveat emptor._



Beth,

I hope you don't mind my enumerating your statements. I would call them: "5 Ways to Enjoy WR and Beyond." or "Beth's 5 Principles to Make the Most of WR and Beyond." It's hard to pick one. They are all excellent. I identify most with #4: "I tend to believe studies that match my personal beliefs, but I try to keep an open mind." I sooo tend to believe studies that match my personal beliefs! But now I have to learn from Beth to keep an open mind!

Muy sabia resulto ser la donia!


----------



## cuchuflete

I overcame my indolence, lazyness, dumbness etc. earlier today when I had to leave my comfortable forero costume and put on moderator attire in another forum.  I had to quote one of the WR forum rules to someone who was behaving in ways beyond the standard deviation, as it were.

While bumbling around in the Rules/FAQ link (at the top of every forum page), I found the much-ignored rule #13:



> Any *information*, translations and definitions *posted in these forums must be accompanied by a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy.* Give sources for extensive quotations. I*f you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so.*


Opinions require no attempt to verify accuracy.  

Now we can argue about the meaning of "a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy".  Does recognizing the name of a source, and having good feelings about that name, constitute "a reasonable attempt"?  It may, if one is as lazy as I am.

The part about saying so if you are unsure of the accuracy of information is a little less ambiguous.  It's called honesty.
While we assemble a few million angels to dance on the head of a pin, let's ponder whether 'a trusted name' does or doesn't equate to 'accuracy'.


----------



## geve

. said:


> You seem upset that a poll has identified 1 in 3 of your compatriots as conspiracy believers


...which is actually inaccurate. Respondents weren't asked "Do you believe in conspiracy theories?". 
The only "fact" we can get is this:

_To the question:_


> There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is: "People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.*"


_out of the 992 people who answered this question, 16% answered "very likely", and 20% said "somewhat likely"._

source
The rest is interpretation.
Also, it could be important to note that the question "was part of a survey posted on newsPolls.org on July 6, 2006" (which probably implies that people with internet access are overrepresented(?)...)

[NB: with this post I'm making a point about studies and how they're used - my intent is NOT to further discuss conspiracy beliefs]


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> There is a danger of sounding persuasive even with data that _appears _reliable.  In a recent thread about race in America and associated topics, there was a link.  The link presented some sweeping statements about results of recent polls.  It then actually gave a little information about those polls, including sampling methods.  Nearly every sample...and they were samples of a few hundred to a little over one thousand persons, consciously, by design, oversampled minority respondents.
> 
> Then what happened? The linked site made sweeping declarations about how Americans, in general, perceive certain questions, based on recent polls.
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> This very unscientific sample reflects the views of a population in which Blacks and Hispanics represent about 36% of the sampled universe.  That happens to be different from the universe about which the comments were made.  It is deceptive.    The Gallup organzation is well-respected and competent.  However, without looking at the poll data and research and sampling design, one can easily draw false conclusions. For those are are not indolent, dumb, or impressionable, have a look for yourselves:  http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
> Those who are too lazy (that's me, most of the time!) can either accept the broad generalities as credible, or assume that they are not, based on whatever they, the readers,  bring to the conversation.
> 
> PS- a Margin of error or MoE of plus or minus 7% is very large for a sample of this size, and is usually a warning to a statistician to take the results with either extreme caution, or a large grain of salt.




I'm glad that I didn't make reference to that particular poll. Mine was the _ABC News  Poll. June 8-12, 2005. N=1,117 adults nationwide (MoE ± 3), including, with an oversample, 145 blacks (MoE ± 8). Fieldwork by ICR._ Now if you want to take on Gallup, a well-respected and competent polling organization as you assert, it's your prerogative. However, I wouldn't hesitate a split second to quote the poll you're criticizing. They might have used stratification or propensity weighting to correct for the oversampling. But I already had too many posts deleted for veering off-topic so I let you deal with them directly.


----------



## geve

Doesn't that show that polls and studies can be opposed by more polls and studies? 

Do we want our cultural discussions to turn into pollfights?


Don't get me wrong - it can be a good thing to show figures to illustrate a point (eg. "Only 4% of French people never or seldom eat cheese" according to the _Baromètre TPL CNIEL 2003-2004 _quoted by the federation of milk and dairy products) but it shouldn't be the whole point on which the discussion is based.


----------



## Everness

geve said:


> Doesn't that show that polls and studies can be opposed by more polls and studies?
> 
> Do we want our cultural discussions to turn into pollfights?
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - it can be a good thing to show figures to illustrate a point (eg. "Only 4% of French people never or seldom eat cheese" according to the _Baromètre TPL CNIEL 2003-2004 _quoted by the federation of milk and dairy products) but it shouldn't be the whole point on which the discussion is based.



I stated my opinions about your reflections on polls but my post was deleted. I'll keep it short just in case. 

Polls might be biased measurement tools but they are better than intuition or abject ignorance as ways of making sense of reality. They are perfectible instruments and professionals like you need to improve them. If 2 polls ask the exact same question or probe the exact same issue and they produce very different results, there's a problem with the instrument. That's of course problematic. If they don't, they can be used and should be used to back up an assertion or an opinion. And if you're not pigheaded and have a realistic perception of yourself (Beth's principle #1 "I don't think that anyone is 100% trustworthy (no offense, foreros!). After all, we're all human!"), you should be open to change your assertion or opinion. But then there's Beth's principle # 4. "I tend to believe studies that match my personal beliefs, but I try to keep an open mind." And many if not most of us, think just like Beth but we keep it to ourselves.

Moral? Polls aren't a problem. We are.


----------



## cuchuflete

Who is "we"?, he asked, pigheadedly.

I spent the better worst part of two decades designing industrial research, supervising its conduct by good hired professionals, and participating in some of it directly.  So much for spurious, unsubstantiated credentials.   Most researchers, if they don't work for a political party, or a social scientist _(sic)_, or a lobbying group, generally do try to make their work accurate and useful.  However, I've been witness to some gross blunders in both design and in conduct of polls and surveys.  There was nothing malicious....just human error.

Being pigheadedly human, they sometimes inject elements of bad design or allow bad execution.  

I think that both posters and readers are entitled to know, or at least have readily available, a little information to help guide them in deciding how useful poll data or its interpretation is likely to be.  We do make mistakes.  That's our nature.  If, however, we are allowed to review something, rather than just blindly accept it (or reject it totally), the likelihood of errors--including errors of judgment--is apt to be less.

Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Who is "we"?, he asked, pigheadedly.
> 
> I spent the better worst part of two decades designing industrial research, supervising its conduct by good hired professionals, and participating in some of it directly.  So much for spurious, unsubstantiated credentials.   Most researchers, if they don't work for a political party, or a social scientist _(sic)_, or a lobbying group, generally do try to make their work accurate and useful.  However, I've been witness to some gross blunders in both design and in conduct of polls and surveys.  There was nothing malicious....just human error.
> 
> Being pigheadedly human, they sometimes inject elements of bad design or allow bad execution.
> 
> I think that both posters and readers are entitled to know, or at least have readily available, a little information to help guide them in deciding how useful poll data or its interpretation is likely to be.  We do make mistakes.  That's our nature.  If, however, we are allowed to review something, rather than just blindly accept it (or reject it totally), the likelihood of errors--including errors of judgment--is apt to be less.
> 
> Is that too much to ask?



No, it's not too much to ask. That's why, for instance, I deleted a post in another thread about a survey that is nowwhere to be found. Remember Beth's principle # 3. "When at university, one of my political science course books was a book called something along the lines of 'How to Lie with Statistics.' Enough said."  

Who is we? I always use the majestic and inclusive us; you can always opt out!


----------



## cuchuflete

Well, I learn something every day.  The majestic can be inclusive.  Political kerrectitude has gone all democratic!

Seriously, I'm glad we have agreement here, just as we did in the conspiracy theory thread, in which we both suggested that a little scepticism can be very healthy when receiving news from supposedly 'authoritative' sources---and from their opponents.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> Who is we? I always use the majestic and inclusive us; you can always opt out!


It is difficult to discuss a point with a person who employs the all inclusive pronoun.  I can not speak for you and you most certainly can not speak for me.  You are intelligent but some of you concepts are simply beyond me so I will have to understand that when you use we I will know that you are aware that I am not part of your we.  Oui?

.,,


----------

