Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority

While the title of the report says "distrusted" that is not what the article says they actually measured, despite some over the top commentary by Edgell. Lets look again... First off the bat I'd like to know more about how this study was conducted. A telephone sampling of 2000 households is hardly the basis for drawing conclusions about America at large. It would be interesting to know the geographic-demographic groups that were involved.Second that religious people would not view atheists as "sharing their vision of American society" is not synonymous with active distrust. I can name many people that would not share my vision for america, but that does not mean I distrust them. It simply means they don't see them as sharing the same goals... and that makes sense doesn't it? That would also make sense and not have anything to do with distrust, but rather common understanding and goals. It would be nicer to have your children marry people you have something in common with, right? I am sort of surprised that race would not have been a factor, but then again maybe that is disguised by the fact that they interviewed people of different races. I wonder if they asked if they would be willing to allow their children to marry a person of a different race, rather than any specified race.I also wonder at their list of minority groups. I'm not saying they weren't broad enough, but I do wonder. Did it include satanists. pagans, polygamists, swingers, hippies, gang members, pedophiles, the poor, drug addicts, native americans, transgendered, handicapped?There are a lot of minority groups out there, and it could be that the researcher's own biases played into the creation of a list.And that atheists were rated lower does not suggest others would have been given some better treatment, especially if the test forced one to choose a ranking system, rather than allowing for there to be ties. I really need to see more to speak on this point. Cough cough cough... Say what? What increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years? There has been growing division, intolerance, and bigotry over the last 30 years. Some limited and tenuous freedoms have been won for gays, but that is it. Actual sexual and communicative freedoms have been lost, and divisions along lines secular and religious in nature have deepened. I'd like to see the evidence for her assertion that things have become more tolerant since the beginning of the "culture war". That makes sense.To my mind this is just another shot in the "culture war", which is better defused than engaged in. I totally get that atheism is in the minority. I get that there is bigotry (covert and overt) against atheists. But that is not the same as our being the "last" or the "most" distrusted minority. We certainly aren't the most riled against in the media, nor the most oppressed via legislation.And we aren't free from discrimination either. I'd be interested in seeing what atheists chose as the least "sharing in their vision of america" and "willing to allow their children to marry". This article and the researchers' commentary create the illusion that atheists don't play the same game as others and might not have hardened any of their (our) stances.Melatonin, you've always been good at scrounging up data, so if you can find the original study that would be supercool. I don't know if this would be the best place. Even if we were the most distrusted minority, that is not the same as "last" which is the only thing I had disputed with crash, and he has ultimately admitted as having been an hyperbolic statement.His own citation showed atheism among a vast array of other belief systems which can and have been oppressed (even today) regarding parental rights. My own citations backed that up, and showed a case outside of parental rights as well. The fact is that, preferences aside, atheists are probably the least oppressed minority in this nation with regard to personal freedom and communication. Atheism (or lack of religion) has been an issue from before this nation started, and will likely always remain an issue of some kind for some group.I'm just glad it is not hampered the way other groups are.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-31-2006 11:14 AM

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

The sentence immediately following the sentence you quoted was intended to get at the point "if it is done correctly". I thought the article's mentioning of numbers was pointless, without any discussion of methodology. 2000 households where? When? That was what I was intending to criticize. And the fact that it was a telephone survey did not help.That said, I actually do not believe 2000 is enough of a sample size to properly draw conclusions about a population of over 400 million spread in reality over the entire world.I realize statisticians may argue otherwise, but I don't believe there has ever been solid attempts to substantiate such claims. I think what can be said is that if done properly (and it seems to me telephone sampling contains errors which would negate that claim) 2000 is a valid sample size to give us a plausible sketch of what one will find in America. Some rough generalization... not a photo.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

I'll definitely be interested in reading it when available. Okay I can see that argument. Then again trust also breaks down based on the situation. I think the two represented were a bit personal and able to be confounded with other factors.I agree something more controlled (perhaps the prisoner's dilemma) would get a more accurate result.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

I suggested that no one has ever tried to substantiate that small samples are capable of reflecting accurately a population which is vast and widespread. Its a very practical issue I am raising here.Lets use a 2000 into 400 million across the NA hemisphere example. The numbers of people and large amount of space allows for a vast number of cultural and subcultural pockets with their own dynamics. The greater number of samples from any specific area represents that area better, but means one sacrifices full representation of another area. And of course that also sacrifices the total number of areas one can sample at all.Like I said, it can get one a sketch, a very rough outline, but not a very accurate picture. And that's when its done right. When I was learning it, this was known as a potential problem. I've heard statisticians claim it is not, but not seen evidence advanced to support their claims. If there has been some work to show small sampling works on those scales, I'm open to info. I agree and I mentioned that twice in my OP. I have given some certain criticisms (mainly of the article) and many potential criticisms which really need the study to determine if they stand.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Well to be honest, I would say our positions are equal in that I have no proof that such sample sizes are inadequate, and he has no proof that they are adequate. My point stands (until someone shows evidence) that no one has substantiated statistical theory in reality, in this context. Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't. My gut says it would not turn out to be the case, others may feel different.I will elaborate on why my gut tells me it would not turn out to be the case. This is based on assumptions, which I am not sure are adequate for all conditions. Lets imagine a population within a large rectangle. As it turns out most people live within a small circle toward the lower left edge of the rectangle. If one distributes the samples geographically (evenly over the rectangle) then one does not get an accurate sampling of the majority population's opinions. Well the GOAL is to get a representative sample, the method thought to achieve this best is random sampling. And you have essentially pinpointed the problem. How does one get an adequately random sample for a heterogenous population distributed unevenly across an area?I am suggesting that with such vast numbers over such vast terrain, which allows for many "clumps", 2000 is going to be too small for an adequate sampling such that one can get good representational results.I feel my gut instinct on this is backed up by failures of polling. Certainly there have been critical misreads of what the nation actually wanted (or one could say "trusted") in statistical polling with similar numbers. The usual excuse each time is that a survey missed a key subgroup within the overall population. I am not sure what you mean by this. This would suggest that voting is a less efficient and accurate way to pick representatives, than simply polling 2000 people. It also suggests that the national census would be less accurate than polling.I agree collecting 10 million would be labor intensive and so a practical difficulty, but I don't see how it would be problematic if one could get such data. And unfortunately that is what we see. Yes repeated studies are necessary because small studies are not capable of producing an accurate picture. Its like having many different quick sketch artists work one after another, to finally flesh in the picture.You will note that the article suggests that geography, education, and exposure to certain elements seemed more important than religious affiliation in accepting atheism. Given how the American population is "clumped" it could actually be that the majority of Americans would not rank atheists the lowest. That is to say much of the US population tends to fit into those categories they mentioned. Almost sounds like a Red/Blue issue. I agree with this, which deals with practical issues. That said, there is a large gap between 2000, and 10million.Kinsey's research did not try to get a bare minimum sampling, but as much sampling as could be gotten. That no one else might have been able to swing the funds and put in the effort to repeat the study to the degree he did, did not actually make his research less useful.Indeed if as you suggest small sampling is credible, then after a large sampling is done, it should be "repeatable" using many small scale samplings.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Before we move on, let's recognize something. My main point was to criticize A. That was it. I then added once schraf answered as if I was addressing B, that I did not happen to think B is good for the explicit purposes of defining what the most distrusted minority is in the US.And I don't think it will be useful in sociological issues. There is a difference between trying to determine how many people might suffer from a condition, and determining what is popular in a community.Given the vast number of cultures capable of being produced within the US, there is no assurance that 2000 can hit them all, and realize what they represent. Once again I point to polling with similar size samples which result in erroneous conclusions about the US population as a whole. I notice you did NOT address that fact.Of course I can agree that if A is true B could be true. My argument is that the number 2000 given the demographics of the US and what they are looking for prevents A from being possible (or I should say, accurate). It was a very simplified example, trying to show you need to take into account physical demographics in order to properly get a random population sample. I'm sorry did I say that was an example of absolutely definitive research? I thought the point I was trying to make was that more than 2000 samples did not make his research worse. NWR's argument was that more data samples would become problematic, my point was more samples would not. What's with the millions? Where did I say millions? I said I didn't think 2000 was enough. Why does that mean I am thinking that we'd need some outrageous number?Your second sentence makes a good point of why he'd want more, that does not suggest that any researcher should or would want less.Honestly, are you suggesting that a researcher would actually look down on a study that involved 10K as opposed to 2K samples? Wouldn't the 10K be thought to have more validity than the 2K?And I will end raising the question I posed to NWR, if 2000 is enough to properly determine preferences within the US population as a whole, why don't we do away with the cost inefficient method of voting, and replace it with polling of 2000 US citizens?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Its funny that you answer my simple analogy as a bogus issue, and turn around to state that what I was leading to with it is a known and well studied problem.Yes the point is to sample the population and not simply the geography, I was specifically trying to point out that researchers must "take into account local population densities so that there will be a random selection from the population."I will look into what that organization has to say. I like this caveat... "If done reasonably well." Now apply that to what I am saying. In my gut I do not believe that 2000 individuals from a population as large and scattered with many different cultures is sufficient that a sampling can be "done reasonably well" to answer the kind of questions they purport to have answered about the American population as a whole.Let's approach this a different way. 2000 individuals were polled across the planet, would that possibly allow us enough information about all humans on earth? Yeah the idea is "done reasonably well", but isn't there a point where numbers effect what can be done reasonably well? What can be covered? Uh... I thought I mentioned that in my OP. Yeah, I agree with everything you just said. We got off on a tangent about numbers based on one of my criticisms. I am particularly interested in the questions they posed, including the different "minorities". They use public opinion surveys to predict election results, in other words determine what the preference of the american public is... which is what the OP article suggested this research did. Now either polling can do it or not. If it can then why not use it?if the only difference is that people make a commitment, then all the pollers have to do is say the person must make a definite commitment as if they were actually voting as it will result in the election. That polling is more accurate than census data?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

That makes no theoretical difference. I'm obviously dealing with a theoretical issue, and indeed would oppose such a move myself. Are you kidding me? It would be much harder to rig it as monitoring would be much much easier. This is a valid criticism, although one could simply call for an election if the margin of error is superceded. Again that supports my point. If one believes that it is not sufficient for important questions, then it is not sufficient to deliver important conclusions. Now was this an important study telling atheists that they are actually the most distrusted, or was this a survey useful only for a flippant question? Why did you spend that much time on answering only one question of mine, which was essentially a throwaway, and you considered asinine?

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

??? I said you had a point, but actually it could be dealt with. That's not exactly fatal.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Well I'm pegging you as a troll at this point. You decide to address what you call an asinine question and now are trying to insult me for no reason.While I definitely said I would oppose replacement of elections with polls at the end of the quote you posted, you ignored everything before it... See what that says above? Your argument about it not being popular would make no difference regarding whether it COULD theoretically be used in place of an election due to its accuracy. That was what I was getting at, not whether it would be possible to get it amended into the Constitution if it were accurate.Thus I had removed that as an argument altogether. The only argument you made which impacted my theoretical was regarding the fact that some elections fall within a 3% margin of error. That was the only point of yours I suggested had merit, though it could be dealt with (theoretically).

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

Okay, this is getting way off topic. What I did was open a new thread focusing on social stats in the Coffee House. I've answered both of your last posts within the OP.We can wait to see what the actual study involves, and then discuss its specific flaws/merits in this thread.

---

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)