Nearly Half of American Believe Muslims Should Have Reduced Civil Liberties.

Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.
 
It's amazing what fear will drive people to. Also amazing how our own government is helping the terrorists by comprehensively trying to sow fear among the population over everything in their lives from travel to food supply to the mail. The only thing to fear is fear itself, a good line that I'm sure a lot of people will agree with.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's amazing what fear will drive people to. Also amazing how our own government is helping the terrorists by comprehensively trying to sow fear among the population over everything in their lives from travel to food supply to the mail. The only thing to fear is fear itself, a good line that I'm sure a lot of people will agree with.[/quote]

Fear itself isn't nearly as tangible as people with darker skin than your own, though.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.[/quote]

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='jmcc']Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.[/quote]

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. [/quote]

And? Odd as it seems, that's statistically enough people to represent the nation.
 
So during the presidential elections why do we all vote? Why can't the government just call 715 people to decide the next president?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']So during the presidential elections why do we all vote? Why can't the government just call 715 people to decide the next president?[/quote]

Er, we do? Electoral college?
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='jmcc']Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.[/quote]

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. [/quote]

And? Odd as it seems, that's statistically enough people to represent the nation.[/quote]

As you said it seems to be reasonable.

Tell me, wouldn't you agree that it seemed reasonable prior to invading Iraq that Iraq had WMDs.

Its not a question of should or shouldn't we have invaded. Its a question of based off the intelligence we had and the prior 11 years of dealing with Iraq that they posessed WMDs.

The point is you don't know wether it WAS reasonable.

As for the 5% margin of error - so what? It doesn't address the ultimate issue.

None of you can say based on what was in the article that they used a representative population of the US.

What you can say is it seems to be representative.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='jmcc']Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.[/quote]

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. [/quote]

And? Odd as it seems, that's statistically enough people to represent the nation.[/quote]

As you said it seems to be reasonable.

Tell me, wouldn't you agree that it seemed reasonable prior to invading Iraq that Iraq had WMDs.

Its not a question of should or shouldn't we have invaded. Its a question of based off the intelligence we had and the prior 11 years of dealing with Iraq that they posessed WMDs.

The point is you don't know wether it WAS reasonable.

As for the 5% margin of error - so what? It doesn't address the ultimate issue.

None of you can say based on what was in the article that they used a representative population of the US.

What you can say is it seems to be representative.

CTL[/quote]

Your Iraq point is both completely random and a bad example of the point you think you made with it. The methodology of the statistics in that case were flawed, as they turned out to be largely made-up, which isn't the case with this Cornell study [yet.]

But in any case, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why the methods of this study are flawed. You say it's not enough people to represent the country, but experts in the field clearly disagree with you. Can you point out what every statistics major at Cornell missed when they were doing this study?
 
715 people IS enough to be a statisticly valid representation of the US - IF proper polling techniques are used. Ultimately, all this blather comes down to one simple question: do you trust the people who did this poll? If you trust that they were honestly trying to get an accurate answer, then most likely the conclusion they came to was roughly correct. If you don't trust the people doing the poll - if, for instance, you think they had a political agenda and wanted a predetermined outcome - then you can't trust the results of the poll either.

Of course, weighting the population is only one of many ways to screw up a poll to show a pretermined outcome. Different phrasing of the question can cause massive variations in the poll's outcome - actually, its a lot easier to mess around with the question phrasing than it is to mess around with your population sampling. Again, it comes down to the question of whether you trust the pollers to be doing their job honestly.
 
From http://www.publicagenda.org/

"There are about 209 million adults in America, of every imaginable background and circumstance. So how can a survey of only 800 or 1,000 adults reflect what the entire country is thinking? How can a thousand voices speak for us all?

Public opinion researchers liken it to making a big pot of soup — to taste-test the soup, you don't have to eat the whole pot, or even a whole bowl's worth. You only have to try a bite. The same is true of public opinion. You don't have to ask every single person in America to find out what Americans think; you only need to ask a few to get the flavor of public opinion.

This fact is reflected by a survey's margin of error, or sampling error. When public opinion researchers report the margin of error for their polls (usually expressed as something like "plus or minus 3 percentage points") they are stating their confidence in the data they have collected. The lower the margin of error, the more accurately the views of those surveyed matches those of the entire population.

You must also remember that every margin of error has a "confidence interval," usually 95 percent. That means that if you asked a question from this poll 100 times, 95 of those times the results would be within 3 percentage points of the original answer. Of course, this means that the other five times you ask the question, you may get answers that are completely off the wall.

For example, if 50 percent of a sample of 1,000 randomly selected Americans said they favor recycling laws, in 95 cases out of 100, 50 percent of the entire population in the U.S. would also have given the same response had they been asked, give or take 3 percentage points (i.e., the true proportion could be 47 percent or 53 percent).

The bigger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but once you get past a certain point -- say, a sample size of 800 or 1,000 — the improvement is very small. The results of a survey of 300 people will likely be correct within 6 percentage points, while a survey of 1,000 will be correct within 3 percentage points, a lower margin of error. But that is where the dramatic differences end — when a sample is increased to 2,000 respondents, the margin of error drops only slightly, to 2 percentage points.

Despite this, some surveys have sample sizes much larger than 1,000 people. But why ask two or three thousand respondents when 800 will do? Well, it sounds more impressive, but that's hardly worth the cost of interviewing all those additional people. Usually when a study has a large sample, it is so certain subgroups — like parents or the elderly — can be teased out and compared to each other or to the whole. If you want to compare retired people to the general public, for instance, a sample of 1,000 might yield only one or two hundred people who are no longer working, which may not be enough to get a solid grasp on the views of that group. A sample of 2,000, however, will probably yield a larger group of retired Americans, and provide a more accurate picture of their views.

Sometimes increasing the sample size is not enough, if the subgroup you are examining is rare or particularly hard to find. Young black men, for example, make up only a small percentage of the U.S. population. In a standard random sample, you would have to interview an enormous number of people before you had a large enough subgroup of young black men. In this instance, you would take an "oversample," purposely seeking out members of the particular group you are interested in, and comparing the results to the main sample.

Of course, in both general samples and oversamples, who is asked is as important as how many are asked. Reputable survey organizations go to great lengths to make sure their interview sample is random and representative of whomever they are surveying, be it retired people, young black men, or all Americans. For more information on random sampling techniques and other important aspects of polling, see 20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results.

The convention for survey researchers is to report sampling errors that are based on a 50 percent split, where the margin of error is largest."

The sample size is legitimate.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']So that's it, between 40% and 48% of ALL Americans are bigots?

Wow, that's disturbing and abnormal, but at least it is a fact.[/quote]

Assuming the pollsters were honestly trying to do their job and not generate a specific answer. As with any poll, it all comes down to whether you trust the people doing the polling.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Your Iraq point is both completely random and a bad example of the point you think you made with it. The methodology of the statistics in that case were flawed, as they turned out to be largely made-up, which isn't the case with this Cornell study [yet.]

But in any case, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why the methods of this study are flawed. You say it's not enough people to represent the country, but experts in the field clearly disagree with you. Can you point out what every statistics major at Cornell missed when they were doing this study?[/quote]

I stand by Drockets comments at the bottom of the last page.

I don't know what methodology they used to select the people for the poll.

The burden isn't mine to prove the people they used were flawed. The burden is on the group that conducted the polling to show they used the correct mix of people.

As for my analogy on Iraq, how mistaken you are. Facts were made up? Facts may have been misinterpreted and facts may have turned out to be wrong. But to suggest the evidence, or even the majority of the evidence was made up is patently false and a lie in of itself.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']The burden isn't mine to prove the people they used were flawed.[/quote]
It is if you wish to dispute the findings, or at least if you want to have any credibility doing so. "I think they're wrong but I'm not going to bother to figure out how or why" really just doesn't carry much weight.

As for my analogy on Iraq, how mistaken you are. Facts were made up?
Since facts cannot, by definition, be made up, you're quite correct :p

It would be far more accurate to say that facts were deliberately distorted. Facts that in any way supported the possiblity that Iraq has WMDs were given credence that they often didn't deserve instead of being critically examined, while facts that contridicted the predetermined results were ignored or suppressed.
 
[quote name='Drocket']It is if you wish to dispute the findings, or at least if you want to have any credibility doing so. "I think they're wrong but I'm not going to bother to figure out how or why" really just doesn't carry much weight.[/quote]

Nonsense. The question is were the 715 people used in this survey representitive of the US as a whole.

That isn't my burden to prove that they are representative of a whole.

If I take a poll of 100 random people working in Iraq with me and submit it is representative of the US population as a whole would you believe that?

But at least you acknowledge that people who use verbs such as think and seems are on very shaky ground.

[quote name='Drocket']It would be far more accurate to say that facts were deliberately distorted. Facts that in any way supported the possiblity that Iraq has WMDs were given credence that they often didn't deserve instead of being critically examined, while facts that contridicted the predetermined results were ignored or suppressed.[/quote]

All viewed through a post 9/11 world prism that the father we get away from is minimized. And the closer we got to an election the more any miniscule chance a fact might be interpreted another way was magnified.

But I guess Bill Clinton was lying when he attacked them with cruise missles in 1998 and signed a bill pledging the US to oust Hussein from power. Or maybe the king of Jordan lied to Tommy Franks when he told him he fully expected Hussein to use gas weapons against US troops.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='jmcc']Your Iraq point is both completely random and a bad example of the point you think you made with it. The methodology of the statistics in that case were flawed, as they turned out to be largely made-up, which isn't the case with this Cornell study [yet.]

But in any case, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why the methods of this study are flawed. You say it's not enough people to represent the country, but experts in the field clearly disagree with you. Can you point out what every statistics major at Cornell missed when they were doing this study?[/quote]

I stand by Drockets comments at the bottom of the last page.

I don't know what methodology they used to select the people for the poll.

The burden isn't mine to prove the people they used were flawed. The burden is on the group that conducted the polling to show they used the correct mix of people.

As for my analogy on Iraq, how mistaken you are. Facts were made up? Facts may have been misinterpreted and facts may have turned out to be wrong. But to suggest the evidence, or even the majority of the evidence was made up is patently false and a lie in of itself.

CTL[/quote]

The burden of proof rest on the accuser not the accused. You're saying the study is flawed somehow. I don't have to prove your point for you.

And your Iraq point is unrelated to this, because all the WMD data has either proven to have been misreported or deliberately fudged. The fact that nothing was found pre-war and now post-war is evidence enough. It's neither here nor there, though, since the decision to invade wasn't decided via phone poll.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Drocket']It is if you wish to dispute the findings, or at least if you want to have any credibility doing so. "I think they're wrong but I'm not going to bother to figure out how or why" really just doesn't carry much weight.[/quote]

Nonsense. The question is were the 715 people used in this survey representitive of the US as a whole.

That isn't my burden to prove that they are representative of a whole.

If I take a poll of 100 random people working in Iraq with me and submit it is representative of the US population as a whole would you believe that?

But at least you acknowledge that people who use verbs such as think and seems are on very shaky ground.[/quote]

No, it's your burden to prove that 715 people ISN'T enough to represent the US population. If you can prove that the 100 are statistically representative, then yes, I'd believe you. There'd have to be an awful lot of explanation as to how an all army group would represent the US population, though. As for "seems" being used, it's a little picky to complain about. How else can you say something that's only 95% certainty? It's very very likely that near half of the people in the US are afraid of Muslims, but there's always a 5% chance the study is reporting wrong.

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Drocket']It would be far more accurate to say that facts were deliberately distorted. Facts that in any way supported the possiblity that Iraq has WMDs were given credence that they often didn't deserve instead of being critically examined, while facts that contridicted the predetermined results were ignored or suppressed.[/quote]

All viewed through a post 9/11 world prism that the father we get away from is minimized. And the closer we got to an election the more any miniscule chance a fact might be interpreted another way was magnified.

But I guess Bill Clinton was lying when he attacked them with cruise missles in 1998 and signed a bill pledging the US to oust Hussein from power. Or maybe the king of Jordan lied to Tommy Franks when he told him he fully expected Hussein to use gas weapons against US troops.

CTL[/quote][/quote]

This is unrelated to the topic at hand, but you're kind of proving the point that the methodology for the evidence that lead to this war was flawed, given your fallback to heresay and "Clinton did it too."
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='elprincipe']It's amazing what fear will drive people to. Also amazing how our own government is helping the terrorists by comprehensively trying to sow fear among the population over everything in their lives from travel to food supply to the mail. The only thing to fear is fear itself, a good line that I'm sure a lot of people will agree with.[/quote]

Fear itself isn't nearly as tangible as people with darker skin than your own, though.[/quote]

Well, you may make that leap but I certainly don't. There are Muslims that are black, Arab, white, Asian. In other words, Muslims aren't a racial group.
 
Bad news for you. I didn't make the claim 715 people were repesentative of the US population as a whole.

Likewise its not my responsibility to explain their methodolgy. That is their job.

I clearly stated many posts ago, that 715 people MIGHT be representative of the US as a whole.

But the poll did not explain how they came to determine that the 715 selected represented the US population.

And again - I am waiting for anyone to show me where somone lied about the US intel on Iraq. Did it turn out to be wrong - apparently yes. As for using Clinton and the "he did it so, we can do it" you are absolutely mistaken. My point was that everyone thought along the same lines.

And there are hearsay exceptions which are accepted. Don't even go down a road you don't have the vaguest idea about.

But as we are finding out from this thread the verb "seems" is a very weak verb.

This poll "seems" to be representive of the US population.

This intel "seems" to prove Iraq had WMDs.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']All viewed through a post 9/11 world prism that the father we get away from is minimized.[/quote]
So as was already said, you ADMIT that the reasons for going to war were, at the very _least_, irrational?

But I guess Bill Clinton was lying when he attacked them with cruise missles in 1998
Would you happen to mean that attack that took place (by sheer coincidence) on the same day as the start of hearings about his BJ? The one that all the Republicans screamed 'Wag the Dog' about?

I have to say, I love the fact that gets brought up any time pro-war people get backed into a corner trying to prove that there was a case for war, yet at the same time, they're completely incapable of saying that maybe Clinton was right. Want to break the cycle and say that Clinton was right in attacking Iraq back when presidential BJs were the hot topic? That he was, in fact, showing remarkable forsight into world affairs, thereby proving what a great president he was?

Or maybe the king of Jordan lied to Tommy Franks when he told him he fully expected Hussein to use gas weapons against US troops.
Would this be 'King of Jordan, commenting based on carefully evaluated intelligence gathered by the Jordanian version of the CIA', or would that be 'King of Jordan, talking out of his ass'?
 
bread's done
Back
Top