We don't like them that much either!

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Greadius
Or maybe they don't think our Yemen policy justifies hatred. Or the mere existence of Israel justifies murdering Americans. What that question was asking, in my opinion, is "Do U.S. policies justify their hatred". I'd answer "no" as well, and I'm sure I understand U.S. policy towards Arab nations.

Well, I guess that's a problem with these kind of polls.....people read the question and then apply their own meaning to them.

When I read 'Believe US actions cause unfavorable opinion'
I took it as asking if the subject thought US actions cause an unfavorable opinion.

Of course, if someone sees that question in a poll and turn it into whole other question like "Do U.S. policies justify their hatred", or anything else they want to make up, then any poll is useless.

A poll only works if subjects answer the questions posed rather than applying their own spin to it.

 

[VoodooAce]

Off topic, but....

Polls are just estimates, of course.

I saw a good study on msnbc, cnn or fox about polls.

One example they give of how a poll can go wrong is with wine consumption.

I'm sure we've all heard that drinking a glass of wine each evening is supposed to make us healthier in the long run. Or so we thought!

When you think about it, who is more likely to be drinking a glass of wine each evening with their supper? Those who tend to be a little better off.

So of course their going to have healthier numbers and live longer. But its not a symtom of drinking a glass of wine each evening so much as it is just being better off, affording better health care, etc....

Anyway, kind of interesting.....

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
Polling is down to an art... around 1000 people is the right sample size. Usually they gain them by random phone calls at random times.

I hope that was a joke but I guess it wasn't. Do you really believe the polls usually conducted for market research and to prove whatever opinion are really representative? Do you have an idea how difficult it is to get a pretty exact election forecast? And elections are very clearly defined, you can say what candidate or party you will vote for. Opinions are even more complicated.
The main task is to get representative figures. Take me as an example. If someone would ask me if I am let's say in favour of the death penalty or not. For which group of people is that representative?
I'm a student, so do all students have that opinion?
I'm between 20 and 30, so do all people in their 20s have that opinion?
I'm male, do all men have that opinion?
I'm left-handed (yeah ) , so do all left-handed people have that opinion?

Of course you'd have to answer all questions with "No". So do all left-handed male students in their 20s have that opinion? Also no.

To get representative figures you need an enormous amount of questions, statistic computing and so on, and most polls like the one we're talking about but also most others are simply not accurate. Everybody knows (or should know) that you can construct a statistic to prove anything and that's why.

1000 is a figure that is used often and it can be quite accurate. But that needs a relatively costly effort that isn't done for "unimportant" polls like that.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Greadius
Like I said before, Americans want them to adopt our values willingly because we see how wonderfully they work for us; plus if they adopted our values they'd probably stop trying to kill us. Big win for Americans all around; what American who appreciates our values COULD say no?

Just because they work for you doesn't mean they'll work for everyone.

Norway is listed as the best country in the world to live by the UN, thus we should adopt their policies and values instead?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
I hope that was a joke but I guess it wasn't. Do you really believe the polls usually conducted for market research and to prove whatever opinion are really representative?

Yes. Elections are an excellent example. Gore v. Bush has the highest margin of difference between the actual vote totals and the exit polls leading up to the election since they started doing it in the 50's. You're telling me they've been lucky guesses for 50 years?

They're not supposed to represent ANYONE, what they're supposed to do is ask enough people to where answers begin to get pretty consistant. Take a statistics class... fascinating stuff.

Originally posted by sysyphus
Just because they work for you doesn't mean they'll work for everyone.

Norway is listed as the best country in the world to live by the UN, thus we should adopt their policies and values instead?

Only if we can adopt Norway's oil reserves to pay for it
Actually, Norway's immigration policies are much more xenophobic than I prefer, but that isn't about Norway... because they share teh same general values as I do.
I don't think everyone should adopt MY values, it is the general value system that I have, and yes, Norweigans have to, that goes something along the line of 'lets not kill one another, play fair, and not point a gun at people and tell them what to do'. The rest of it is really just filling in the blanks and personal preferences.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius[/]
Yes. Elections are an excellent example. Gore v. Bush has the highest margin of difference between the actual vote totals and the exit polls leading up to the election since they started doing it in the 50's. You're telling me they've been lucky guesses for 50 years?

I'm telling you that even with the enormous effort they put into exit polls they still have margins like that. And my point was that they put much less effort into less important polls. Therefore statistically the margin has to be higher (according to statistics class ).

They're not supposed to represent ANYONE, what they're supposed to do is ask enough people to where answers begin to get pretty consistant. Take a statistics class... fascinating stuff.

They're not supposed to represent anyone in mathematical sense. But those who use them usually assume they would. If you look at statistics ABOUT statistics you'll find out that many many things are estimated wrong sometimes on purpose sometimes because of stupidity, for example in economics. But still they're usually presented as if they were the bible.
Cause often they either don't ask enough but usually not the right people to get a consistant result.
And btw, I fear I'm taking to many math/statistics classes, cause that's all I take actually :crazyeyes

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce


Well, I guess that's a problem with these kind of polls.....people read the question and then apply their own meaning to them.

When I read 'Believe US actions cause unfavorable opinion'
I took it as asking if the subject thought US actions cause an unfavorable opinion.

I didn't look to me as if enough information was given in the article to make this judgement and your coresponding judgement about the people who did not choose this answer. If you are given two choices, US action, and misinformation, what do you put down? What if you feel it is a combination of both, but that isn't a choice. It is a legitimate opinion, that can be very well thought out, and a well-meaning person could put down misinformation because they feel that that is the reason with the most influence. You lumped them into the 'heads buried in sand category'.

This is just hypothetical, there could have been a both answer, but again, those people would be lumped into the 'heads buried in sand category'.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Hitro


The main task is to get representative figures. Take me as an example. If someone would ask me if I am let's say in favour of the death penalty or not. For which group of people is that representative?

I'm a student, so do all students have that opinion?

Only if you oppose the death penalty and go to Bezerkley, UCLA, or any college in Massachusettes that isn't MIT

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Only if you oppose the death penalty and go to Bezerkley, UCLA, or any college in Massachusettes that isn't MIT

Yeah, you know us wild and crazy Californians.

We're not so politically responsible as my friend RM and his fellow Minnesotans.

Someday we'll mature and elect, oh, let's say, Stone Cold Steve Austin as our Governor. Or the Godfather and his Ho-Train can be his cabinet. Scotty Too Hottie can be Secretary of State.

Someday, when we achieve the lofty standards set by Minnesota.

 

[Jimcat]

Hey, don't blame governor Jesse "the Mouth" Ventura on someone too young to even vote. As I recall it, Ventura won the governor's race because: 1) He ran a surprisingly well-coordinated campaign and took clear stands on substantive issues, and 2) None of his competitors from the major parties did the same.

While I don't agree with Ventura's politics on some issues (and I certainly don't approve of the media grandstanding that he was doing a couple of years back when he had a state to run), I don't think he's a complete idiot, and I don't think Minnesotans were complete idiots to elect him. What it shows is that the major political parties were full of hot air, and the people rejected them both in favor of someone who had something worthwhile to say.

In my opinion, any time the people choose to go beyond the bounds of the two-party system can't be all bad. Even if they do elect a former pro wrestler.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with Middle Eastern or American opinion polls.

Or does it?

 

[VoodooAce]

Lol.

It was a joke. Meant to be as inane as RM's comment.

I know I didn't quite achieve it, but he sets some pretty lofty standards.

 

[Jimcat]

It's hard to satirize someone whose actions are already self-parodying, as GB Trudeau discovered in the 80's. But I always applaud the effort.

 

[VoodooAce]

Actually, I do applaud the election of candidates belonging to parties other than Dem or Rep......

While I don't think an eighteen party system is particularly good, I would like to see more than just the two parties considered as legitimate options in the US.

And my joke could have been much funnier except those are the only wrestlers I could remember at the time.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce

And my joke could have been much funnier except those are the only wrestlers I could remember at the time.

I can admit that in this area your knowledge has bested mine. I can only think of Stone Cold, and The Rock past Jesse, and you came up with 3.

I don't consider those two to be my fault though. Stone has been on several local TV commercials, and The Rock has a budding movie career which I catch wind of during previews. It is practically unavoidable, and I've tried.

 

[Jimcat]

Aw, c'mon, has everyone forgotten Hulk Hogan already?

And what about Andy Kaufman's nemesis, Jerry Lawler?

Classy Fred Blassie, with "Pencil Neck Geek" and Andy Kaufman again?

Rowdy Roddy Piper, "I'm here to kick ass and chew gum, and I'm all out of gum!"?

Andre the Giant? You _must_ have seen "The Princess Bride".

Cyndi Lauper's friend Captain Lou Albano?

The Iron Sheik? Mr. Fuji and Mr. Saito? Nikolai Volkoff?

Man, you either missed or forgot some of the great lowbrow entertainment of the past twenty years.

 

[knowltok2]

I'll give you Hulk and Andre, but I was thinking of current rasslers. I learned about Lawler from the movie, and I've heard of the piper fellow, but couldn't pick him out of a crowd.

I just have never liked professional wrestling, and have never had the slightest interest in it. So for the most part, I missed it.

The Princess Bride is one damn good movie.