[ETWolverine]

Ok, I'm going off topic to rant about statistics here, so forgive me, or skip my post!

There was recently a story about a girl in the UK who attends a private school which has a policy saying "no jewelry". Exceptions are made for religious pieces, such as a crucifix. The girl started coming to school wearing a "chastity ring" which she says is a symbol of her Christian faith and her committment to remain a virgin until she is married. The school instructed her to remove the ring because it violated policy. The school said the ring is not a part of the Christian faith, but rather a personal piece of jewelry. Blah blah blah, big lawsuit ensues, school wins, girl can't wear the ring to school. After the article there was a poll which people could respond to. The question was: "Should a girl be allowed to wear a chasitiy ring to school?" Well, most votes were "yes". Of course they were yes! The question didn't address the specifics of the article; it should have said; "Should a girl be allowed to violate a school's dress code by wearing a chastity ring?". But of course, that might lead the results in the opposite direction....

I use this example to illustrate how statistics are unreliable unless you know the group being asked, the specific question be asked, etc. I'm taking a statistics class right now and it's only taught me to hate statistcs more! :)

/Rant over.

Oh, I mean in no way to indicate ETW that you've posted something as unreliable as the case I mentioned in my rant!

I agree that the way the question is posed can change the responses. No question and you are 100% right. That said, the raw statistic, with no explanation whatsoever, was still pretty shocking to me. That's why I posted it.

Elliot

[jillianleab]

I agree that the way the question is posed can change the responses. No question and you are 100% right. That said, the raw statistic, with no explanation whatsoever, was still pretty shocking to me. That's why I posted it.

Elliot

It is shocking, which is why I'm curious about how the numbers were reached. If they were reached using reliable methods, accurate, non-biased question, etc, then I think it makes a pretty big statement. As I said in my other post, I'm assuming since it was conducted by Gallup it's conducted fairly, but we all know what they say about people who assume... :)

[Dark_crow]

It is shocking, which is why I'm curious about how the numbers were reached. If they were reached using reliable methods, accurate, non-biased question, etc, then I think it makes a pretty big statement. As I said in my other post, I'm assuming since it was conducted by Gallup it's conducted fairly, but we all know what they say about people who assume.... :)

The question was….”If the United States is viewed as having lost the war….”

To me, I could answer…not much.

And viewed by who….. this was poor and ridicules as far as I'm concerned.

[jillianleab]

The question was….”If the United States is viewed as having lost the war….”

That's the published question; it may or may not be the actual question that was asked. Journalists and statisticians can be tricky and skew results the way they want them to appear. I'm not saying that was done in this case, but I'm also not saying that was NOT done in this case. It all depends on the motivations and honesty of the people giving the poll.

[ETWolverine]

Should have posted a link from the beginning. Sorry about that, folks.

Iraq

The question is about half-way down the page.

Elliot

[excon]

Does that bother you? Is that how you feel?

Hello Elliot:

Well, you're as adept at skewing questions as the poll taker is. There's the question. There's the answers. Then there's YOUR spin on the answers.

The question wasn't whether people care about the war. No! It was whether they cared about how OTHER PEOPLE view the war.

Given that THAT's the question, my take on the answers is that most people don't care what other peoples take is. If I answered the question, I would have said that I'm not bothered at all. Indeed, I couldn't care less what other people think.

Does that mean that I don't care about the war? No, not at all.

Now, as you know, I'm a black and white kind of guy. War is either won or lost. Winning or losing ISN'T in the eye of the beholder. It's only “seen” as one way or another, by those who don't know.

Then there are those who know. I'm one of those. It's clear to me, and was from very early on, that we would not win. We haven't and we won't. If there are others who see it as I do, that doesn't bother me at all. Actually, that's a good thing.

excon