Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 31 of 60 (299914)
03-31-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Silent H
03-31-2006 6:15 PM


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.
I'll have to agree with Zhimbo here.
Sampling is based on the mathematics of probability. A sample size of 2000, if I recall correctly, gives a result within a 3% confidence interval. In looking at the results, you have to recognize that their accuracy is limited to the confidence interval. This is usually stated when such sampling is presented. The sampling methodology is usually also published, and is thus subject to critical analysis.
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.
The mathematics is based on random sampling, not on representative sampling. It is important that the sampling be reasonably random, but it need not be fully representative.
Getting an adequately random sample can be tricky. There is actually a body of research on that problem.
Using a sample size of, say, 10 million would actually make the problem far harder. It is difficult to use that large a sample without introducing a lot of systematic bias.
These sampling methods gain credibility from the fact that they are repeatable. Some other group will likely carry out a similar experiment, and that will either support the results or provide a basis for challenging them. If much larger samples were used, you would actually lose this benefit of repeatability, for the cost of repeating would be prohibitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 6:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 4:28 AM nwr has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 60 (299996)
04-01-2006 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nwr
03-31-2006 6:43 PM


I'll have to agree with Zhimbo here
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.
Sampling is based on the mathematics of probability. A sample size of 2000, if I recall correctly, gives a result within a 3% confidence interval.
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.
The mathematics is based on random sampling, not on representative sampling. It is important that the sampling be reasonably random, but it need not be fully representative. Getting an adequately random sample can be tricky. There is actually a body of research on that problem.
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.
Using a sample size of, say, 10 million would actually make the problem far harder. It is difficult to use that large a sample without introducing a lot of systematic bias.
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.
Some other group will likely carry out a similar experiment, and that will either support the results or provide a basis for challenging them. If much larger samples were used, you would actually lose this benefit of repeatability, for the cost of repeating would be prohibitive.
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.
If much larger samples were used, you would actually lose this benefit of repeatability, for the cost of repeating would be prohibitive.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 03-31-2006 6:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Zhimbo, posted 04-01-2006 9:49 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 04-01-2006 11:03 AM Silent H has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 33 of 60 (300029)
04-01-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
04-01-2006 4:28 AM


I have no proof that such sample sizes are inadequate,, and he has no proof that they are adequate.
I don't need proof. I'm making a point about probability theory. It's not an empirical issue. Given a random sample, you can very precisely work out the accuracy of a sample size of 2000.
I stated:
A) Given a random sample...
B) 2000 is a good sample size for most purposes.
All of your *valid* issues might be relevant to A, but they aren't relevant to B.
Your example of a "clumped" population in a rectangle is way off base. An geographically evenly distributed sample is *not* a random sample of the people. It's a systematic sample, and one likely to lead to systematic biases.
If there *is* systematic bias in your sampling procedure, then increasing the size from 2000 to 4000 or 1 million isn't going to remove the systematic bias.
And if you're holding up the Kinsey reports as an example of useful research, I really don't see why you're concerned about this study at all, as Kinsey consciously did *not* try to get truly random samples. And his sample sizes are not dramatically different from the study under question in this thread - about 5000 white men and 6000 white women. Less than an order of magnitude difference with the current study. It isn't as if he had millions of subjects. As he was looking to have detailed knowledge of many activities/preferences/etc that might have low overall rates of occurence, it would make sense that he would need somewhat more subjects.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 04-01-2006 09:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 4:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 11:48 AM Zhimbo has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 34 of 60 (300043)
04-01-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
04-01-2006 4:28 AM


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.
This is a bogus issue. The researchers are sampling the population, not the geography. To the extent that they use geographic methods, they have to take into account local population densities so that there will be a random selection from the population.
How does one get an adequately random sample for a heterogenous population distributed unevenly across an area?
This is a known and well studied problem. There is published research in the area. Here is a link to a professional organization in the discipline. It is sensitive to social trends - a sampling method that works today might not work next year.
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.
If the sampling is done reasonably well, then 2,000 is sufficient. If it is done poorly, a larger sample size won't solve the problems of poor sampling.
I feel my gut instinct on this is backed up by failures of polling.
Overall, the experience pubic opinion survey organizations to rather well. Amateurs are more prone to poor experimental design.
Poor sampling is only one of the problems. The wording of the questions asked can be important. Poorly chosen wording can result in misunderstood questions or can stimulate emotional responses. This is a harder problem than the sampling problem. Using a larger sample size does nothing to avoid this problem. Incidently, a survey about attitudes toward atheism may be particularly sensitive to problems associated with how the questions are worded.
This would suggest that voting is a less efficient and accurate way to pick representatives, than simply polling 2000 people.
Elections are not public opinion surveys. In an election, you are expecting the voters to make some sort of committment to support the legislature that they elect.
It also suggests that the national census would be less accurate than polling.
I think there is some evidence to support this. However, the national census does provide basic data that can be used in polling - local population densities, for example.
Kinsey's research did not try to get a bare minimum sampling, but as much sampling as could be gotten.
Polling works best when you have clear issues. That is, you know what you are looking for and just need the opinion data. As far as I know, Kinsey and associates were looking for more basic data, such as would be required before you could even design a statistical experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 4:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 1:26 PM nwr has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 60 (300058)
04-01-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Zhimbo
04-01-2006 9:49 AM


All of your *valid* issues might be relevant to A, but they aren't relevant to B.
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).
Your example of a "clumped" population in a rectangle is way off base.
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.
And if you're holding up the Kinsey reports as an example of useful research, I really don't see why you're concerned about this study at all, as Kinsey consciously did *not* try to get truly random samples.
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.
It isn't as if he had millions of subjects. As he was looking to have detailed knowledge of many activities/preferences/etc that might have low overall rates of occurence, it would make sense that he would need somewhat more subjects.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Zhimbo, posted 04-01-2006 9:49 AM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 12:01 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 37 by Zhimbo, posted 04-01-2006 12:40 PM Silent H has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 60 (300061)
04-01-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
04-01-2006 11:48 AM


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?
Geez, there's a whole bunch of reasons why not.
Probably the most important is that we have this little thing called a Constitution. Now, granted, much of it has been effectively suspended by the current administration, but, nonetheless, we still have the right to vote. It's a sacred right in this country, and if anyone made any effort to curtail that on a nationwide basis as you suggest, most of us would start stockpiling weapons in Idaho.
Beyond that, there are practical reasons. Such a survey would be much, much easier to rig than a nationwide election. In addition, note that the margin of error is 3%. Quite a few elections are decided by percentages within that margin of error. Hence the results would be questionable. Also, deciding who is going to be running the country is a considerably more important question than what folks think of heathens, pagans and other undesirables. Given the seriousness of the question to be answered, polling just isn't an adequate method for answering the question.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I could come up with after about 5 minutes thought. The fact that those ideas never occurred to you suggests how long you took to really think about it before positing such an asinine question.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 11:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 1:48 PM subbie has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 37 of 60 (300072)
04-01-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
04-01-2006 11:48 AM


Well, then we're getting off track if your main point is about how the sampling is done, because we don't know in this case (yet). However, this is hardly a novel problem, and there is no particular reason to think that this study *will* have major sampling problems.
But if they do, doubling or tripling the number of subjects is not going to help.
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.
Depends on what you want. Just because this sample may not sample any 2nd-wives-of-interracial-polygamous-marriages doesn't invalidate the apparent aims of the study. I don't think the researchers wanted to sample the full, intricate detail of all possible variation in attitudes (unlike Kinsey, say, who really was interested in specific variation as much or more than simple averages).
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).
Then we're speaking different languages. By what I mean by point A, if the sample size was 3 or 3000 or 3,000,000, A could be true.
" trying to show you need to take into account physical demographics in order to properly get a random population sample. "
If we had an accurate list of the entire U.S. population, we could sample randomly and never have to think about physical demographics one bit. As it is, we consider these sorts of issues only as a remedy for known biases in our sampling procedure.
"I'm sorry did I say that was an example of absolutely definitive research? "
Huh? I'm sorry, but did *I* say that *you* said it was "absolutely definitive"???? I was very careful not to put words in your mouth and very purposefully used your own terminology: "useful". You're the only person to use the phrase "absolutely definitive". Until me, right now, twice in this paragraph, but that doesn't count.
Why does that mean I am thinking that we'd need some outrageous number?
Don't get your knickers in a twist. There was no intent to say that you said that. I'm saying he had a similar number of subjects. "Millions" was an extreme contrast. I just don't see why Kinsey's same-order-of-magnitude-sample-size-with-highly-biased-sampling was being contrasted at all with the OP study.
There were perfectly valid reasons for Kinsey to get a few thousand more subjects, IMO. Doesn't mean that all studies need it, or that 2000 is necessarily insufficient.
Honestly, are you suggesting that a researcher would actually look down on a study that involved 10K as opposed to 2K samples?
Well, yes, I would in many cases. For many if not most purposes, 10K would be an enormous waste of money and resources. It would indicate that the folks running the study had too much money and too little knowledge of statistics. They could have run 2, 3, 4 or more studies for the same amount of money and obtained 2, 3 or 4 times the useful information.
As for voting vs. opinion polls:
Well, N=2000 wouldn't give enough accuracy for an election. +/-3% ain't gonna cut it. And the problems with proper sampling change from usually small but irritating biases to changing the course of history. That said, I think one could actually make a pretty darn good case for the superiority of random sample polls vs. voluntary elections, if your intent is to elect leaders who conform to the preferences of the largest number of people.
Elections don't work like that. They're about who gets the most votes, which is in principal similar but in practice not the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 11:48 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 60 (300080)
04-01-2006 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
04-01-2006 11:03 AM


This is a bogus issue...This is a known and well studied problem..
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.
If the sampling is done reasonably well, then 2,000 is sufficient. If it is done poorly, a larger sample size won't solve the problems of poor sampling.
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?
Poor sampling is only one of the problems. The wording of the questions asked can be important. Poorly chosen wording can result in misunderstood questions or can stimulate emotional responses. This is a harder problem than the sampling problem. Using a larger sample size does nothing to avoid this problem. Incidently, a survey about attitudes toward atheism may be particularly sensitive to problems associated with how the questions are worded.
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".
Elections are not public opinion surveys. In an election, you are expecting the voters to make some sort of committment to support the legislature that they elect.
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.
I think there is some evidence to support this.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 04-01-2006 11:03 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 04-01-2006 1:45 PM Silent H has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 39 of 60 (300084)
04-01-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Silent H
04-01-2006 1:26 PM


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.
What you are missing, is that it is harder to do the sampling "reasonably well" with a sample size of 4000, than it is with a sample size of 2000.
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?
No. But it doesn't claim to give information about all humans. It only claims to give an estimate of the mean (as taken over all humans).
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?
Sure. In fact increasing the sample size makes it more difficult to do the sampling "reasonably well."
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?
As others have pointed out, elections are not public opinion surveys, for various reasons.
The accuracy of a public opinion survey depends on the honesty and the disinterest of those conducting the survey. There is much at stake in an election, such that it would be impossible to guarantee this degree of honesty and detachment. It's hard enough keeping elections honest. Also elections are sometime won or lost on a margin smaller than the error margin of a public opinion survey.
I think there is some evidence to support this.
That polling is more accurate than census data?
When used to survey public opinion, that's my impression. I admit that I don't have hard data to back it up.
Keep in mind that the surveying of public opinion is a secondary issue in the census. The primary issue is finding the geographical distributions, such as needed for electoral redistribution and for implementing various other public policies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 1:26 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 5:25 PM nwr has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 60 (300086)
04-01-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
04-01-2006 12:01 PM


Probably the most important is that we have this little thing called a Constitution.
That makes no theoretical difference. I'm obviously dealing with a theoretical issue, and indeed would oppose such a move myself.
Such a survey would be much, much easier to rig than a nationwide election
Are you kidding me? It would be much harder to rig it as monitoring would be much much easier.
In addition, note that the margin of error is 3%. Quite a few elections are decided by percentages within that margin of error.
This is a valid criticism, although one could simply call for an election if the margin of error is superceded.
Also, deciding who is going to be running the country is a considerably more important question than what folks think of heathens, pagans and other undesirables. Given the seriousness of the question to be answered, polling just isn't an adequate method for answering the question.
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?
The fact that those ideas never occurred to you suggests how long you took to really think about it before positing such an asinine 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 12:01 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 3:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 41 of 60 (300103)
04-01-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
04-01-2006 1:48 PM


Why continue with this line?
Well, you agree that my first objection to polling for a president is it fatal to the idea, yet you wish to discuss it further. Seems even more pointless than the average forum board discussion.
As far as why I didn't address anything else you were saying, nwr seems to have it well under control.
This message has been edited by subbie, 04-01-2006 02:49 PM

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 1:48 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 3:55 PM subbie has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 60 (300106)
04-01-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by subbie
04-01-2006 3:43 PM


Re: Why continue with this line?
you agree that my first objection to polling for a president is it fatal to the idea
??? 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 3:43 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 4:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 43 of 60 (300110)
04-01-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
04-01-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Why continue with this line?
I said you had a point, but actually it could be dealt with. That's not exactly fatal.
Nuh uh.
That makes no theoretical difference. I'm obviously dealing with a theoretical issue, and indeed would oppose such a move myself.
My emphasis.
I don't necessarily expect you to keep up with everyone else's points, but it would be nice if you at least kept up with your own.
This message has been edited by subbie, 04-01-2006 03:02 PM

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 3:55 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2006 5:19 PM subbie has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 60 (300142)
04-01-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by subbie
04-01-2006 4:01 PM


Re: Why continue with this line?
I don't necessarily expect you to keep up with everyone else's points, but it would be nice if you at least kept up with your own.
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...
That makes no theoretical difference. I'm obviously dealing with a theoretical issue
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 4:01 PM subbie has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 60 (300143)
04-01-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nwr
04-01-2006 1:45 PM


NWR and Zhimbo
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 04-01-2006 1:45 PM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024