Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Orbit

Survey of men

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

thanks for your many words

 

No problem, I get paid by the word. Thanks for stopping by.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
27 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

Obviously this would invalidate any survey but I think this is highly unlikely in this particular case given the organizations involved in producing the survey. It's also unlikely because, as noted before, there's really nothing particularly controversial or provocative about the results. There's no real reason to be concerned about this here.

 

 

No real reason to be concerned.  Ok, gotcha. Nothing to see here folks.  Trust the organizations.

 

Besides, wellnamed thinks that a bad result is "highly unlikely".  In fact, he uses the word "unlikely" several times, so of course we know that he is absolutely sure of the results.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

 

No problem, I get paid by the word. Thanks for stopping by.

 

Sure, no problem. Glad to help you out! 

 

By the way, you really shouldn't ignore the rest of what I said. It's money in your pocket if you don't.  You could buy a lot and a house refuting what I said in my last few posts here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wellnamed said:

Obviously some pollsters perform better than other, and you should keep margins of error in mind before drawing too fine-grained of conclusions from a survey like the one in this thread, but considering the mathematical foundations of statistical sampling, the wide consensus across many scientific disciplines that such sampling techniques allow for representative validity, and empirical support for polling accuracy specifically found in election polling, I think you can feel reasonably confident that surveys like this one are providing you useful data, within the scope of the known limitations like margins of error.

 

The poll in this thread didn't seem especially controversial to me either. I was just thinking of polls in general and many of them in which I refer to about the decline of church attendance, the none's, and other such issues. If there's some faulty methodology involved in polling and surveying itself, then it has a blanket effect across the board through all variety of issues. And it would be hard to know the real numbers for something like how many "none's" are really out there, how much is church attendance really in decline, and so on. In this case what do men of those age ranges really think on a national level. 

 

By your argument here I suppose the advise would be that the religious polls are pretty much accurate and do reflect a realistic outlook when projected nationally. In the same way the opinions of the 1,600 men surveyed are roughly accurate. If they turn out to be more questionable than thought, however, that would seem to spread out evenly across every type of polling and survey. And put us at a disadvantage in terms of getting truthful answers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

There are also major conspiracies within the Right which are pretty much mainstream, that leftism, more specifically Post Modern Neo-Marxism is invading through colleges and HR departments in order to institute an anti-male policy and achieve progress with women by hamstringing men with these allegations.  

This seems like somewhat of an exaggeration. The idea I've got is that men's rights or interests simply aren't in the equation. The policies are not anti-male. That would indeed sound like a conspiracy theory. They're just unreasonably pro-accuser and eager to see women as victims, and as such they cause collateral damage mostly among men. This is much more along the lines of what I hear from the critics.

 

9 hours ago, wellnamed said:

I agree that there's lots of ways people could act inappropriately, but that's not what the survey asked about, and you're conveniently skipping past the part where you try to find out whether those things are actually happening with any frequency. A hypothetical disadvantage is not actually a disadvantage. 

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but taking this at face value makes it seems a tad unfair. Let's say there's a danger somewhere and people are very careful because of it. The consequent lack of massive casualties isn't evidence that there isn't a massive danger or that anyone's fear is unwarranted.

 

If there is a problem within our rules, it's not like anyone has to become a victim before you can determine that there's a problem.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Sure, no problem. Glad to help you out! 

 

By the way, you really shouldn't ignore the rest of what I said. It's money in your pocket if you don't.  You could buy a lot and a house refuting what I said in my last few posts here. 

 

Good arguments, but this could be a turning point where things could go from civil to digressing into uncivil. And wellnamed has been very civil in his posts so far. I think this is where some people may feel taunted by conservative thinkers resorting to ad hom's. Something like this was mentioned in another thread so I just want to point out that it would do an argument justice to avoid going down that road. And eliminate that sort of complaint against those trying to voice opposing opinions towards left bent thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A word on population vs sample size. Counter-intuitively, population size is not related to sample size once you reach large numbers (like millions). In other words, you don't reduce your margin of error by increasing a sample from 2,500 to 3,500. That's what I meant by diminishing returns. It's due to laws of mathematics, specifically statistics.

 

If you look in statistics textbooks, this is exactly what you will find. So there is no need to increase your sample size to estimate for 355 million to any more than you would need for 10 million. You don't gain any accuracy, the error remains the same, usually from 3% to 5%.

 

So no, you don't need a sample size larger than 2,500 to estimate for the US, and it is extremely rare to see larger sample sizes, though sometime you will see them up to 5,000 for estimating the American population.

 

Weighting a sample corrects for over or under-representation of demographic categories in a sample, making them reflect the population, which increases the accuracy of the estimate. This is all standard. No smoke, no mirrors, just math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

It wasnt an exaggeration, it is exactly what people like Jordan Peterson believe.  I actually watch and pay attention to the other side.

 

While Peterson is an eccentric and says pretty controversial things sometimes, I don't think I've ever heard him ascribe anti-male motive to anything. Then again I don't listen to Peterson much so I might only have missed that.

Closest I could immediately find is this clip where he says (at 5:44) that tearing down the patriarchy is the justification postmodern radicals go with when they undermine due process. At least from that it would be a stretch to say that Peterson claims the motive is anti-male. That would require him to believe that patriarchy equals maleness somehow, but doing a quick search on google reveals Peterson has said "the patriarchy is Western civilization".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Ok, gotcha. Nothing to see here folks.  Trust the organizations.

 

I think you've hit on a pretty important issue here, which is about trust in institutions or organizations. I think it should be clear that one is forced to trust at least some institutions and some organizations, at least to some extent, or else one's knowledge of the world is going to be severely impoverished. I've never carried out Young's double slit electron experiment, but I trust that the authors of the QM textbook are not lying to me. I wasn't there when various fossil hominins were recovered and I haven't seen them myself, but I trust that the scientists who piece them together to tell us something about human evolution are not lying. I can't prove that 538 didn't fabricate the data for the survey from whole cloth, but I trust that they didn't. I don't think my trust is unreasonable or unwarranted (I've been following 538 for a decade for example, and so have had many opportunities to evaluate their trustworthiness), nor is it blind, unconditional, or absolute. But it's certainly true that I have to have a certain amount of trust or else there is very little I could claim to know about the world. In fact, I feel like a worldview with no trust for organizations would be so impoverished that I sincerely doubt you actually have such a view. I expect that you at least implicitly trust many organizations, as well you should.

 

I think that for ex-Christians, especially those coming out of very fundamentalist sects, figuring out a reasonable epistemology, figuring out an approach to validating ideas, institutions, and organizations, is often a very real problem. I could understand if the idea of knowledge where you never have to trust anyone or anything at all could seem theoretically ideal. But it's not practically feasible, unless you want to retreat into a near solipsism. The harder task, but a worthwhile one, is to make the effort to establish where trust is warranted and where it isn't. Trust doesn't have to be "faith" though. It doesn't have to be given with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, without criticism and without condition. But my trust in various scientific institutions is not like that, and I don't think you really have any particular reason to impugn the trustworthiness of 538, or at least you've given no such reason.

 

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Besides, wellnamed thinks that a bad result is "highly unlikely".  In fact, he uses the word "unlikely" several times, so of course we know that he is absolutely sure of the results.

 

I used the word "unlikely" because it adequately conveys my level of conviction, which is not absolute, but which I consider to be reasonable, for reasons I've given. Like, I was literally being clear that I cannot be absolutely certain that some possibilities (like 538 committing fraud) are false. I'm not sure why you're bothered by this. To me it sounds like a young-earth-creationist expressing bitter skepticism about evolution because she can't be entirely certain that God didn't place the fossils to test her faith. Absolute certainty is a rare commodity in science, or really just in human knowledge in general. I don't think that's much of a real issue in practice. It's much like the issue of trust. In practice you have to make some reasonable and pragmatic decisions, intelligently assessing the information you have to work with. If you want absolute certainty, you're probably better off sticking with religion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TrueScotsman said:

I've listened to hundreds of hours of Peterson, this reflects his views as well as many other Conservatives.  You will find such views almost universally across the board on their channels.  I pay attention to such things in order to not fall into the error of not properly understanding the opposition as Peterson and others have done.  

Fine, I guess I'll just have to take your word then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The poll in this thread didn't seem especially controversial to me either. I was just thinking of polls in general and many of them in which I refer to about the decline of church attendance, the none's, and other such issues. If there's some faulty methodology involved in polling and surveying itself, then it has a blanket effect across the board through all variety of issues. And it would be hard to know the real numbers for something like how many "none's" are really out there, how much is church attendance really in decline, and so on. In this case what do men of those age ranges really think on a national level. 

 

By your argument here I suppose the advise would be that the religious polls are pretty much accurate and do reflect a realistic outlook when projected nationally. In the same way the opinions of the 1,600 men surveyed are roughly accurate. If they turn out to be more questionable than thought, however, that would seem to spread out evenly across every type of polling and survey. And put us at a disadvantage in terms of getting truthful answers. 

 

Basically my view is that we have good reasons to feel generally confident in the scientific validity of well-designed survey research carried out by reputable organizations or academic scientists. We also know that there are real problems that can affect the reliability of any individual survey, so we should pay attention to how a survey was conducted and not just accept any results without question.

 

One helpful strategy, and "the rise of the nones" is a useful example of it, is to try to look for consensus between different researches and across different methods. This is called "triangulation". So for the changes in religiosity we don't have to rely on a single poll, we have multiple surveys from Pew, Gallup, and PRRI over several years with similar results. We sometimes have data on attendence and membership from church organizations themselves. By evaluating all the available evidence together we can be more confident in the conclusions than in a case where we have only a single survey. So I would say that the "rise of the nones" as a phenomenon is better established than any of the data in this survey, although I do suspect there are some other data out there on men's attitudes or responses to #metoo which I haven't looked for.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but taking this at face value makes it seems a tad unfair. Let's say there's a danger somewhere and people are very careful because of it. The consequent lack of massive casualties isn't evidence that there isn't a massive danger or that anyone's fear is unwarranted.

 

If there is a problem within our rules, it's not like anyone has to become a victim before you can determine that there's a problem.

 

To try to clarify, I was attempting to outline something like a pragmatic principle and not an absolute truth. If there's an obvious problem with a rule and a clear solution then by all means fix the rule immediately. If there's a very unambiguous danger associated with some institutional policy, and reasonable ways of trying to address it, then it should be addressed.

 

But, I don't think end's post really raises any issues with that level of specificity or certainty. He says people might do this or might do that, but there's no reason given to suppose that any of those things are at all likely. The pragmatic principle I have in mind is that it's there's a lot of drawbacks to proposing strictly defined rules and bureaucracy in the absence of some actual need for them. I think it's basically inevitable that rules will fail to account for every possible thing that might or could happen, and it's usually pretty painful to try to make them do so. Slippery slope fallacies are not really very useful here. That doesn't mean there are no cases where proposed rules have clear and obvious problems. There definitely are. I can imagine workplace policies that someone might propose in response to #metoo that I would oppose along these lines. But I can only be bothered to worry so much about things that haven't happened unless I have a reason to believe those things are likely to happen. What I was pushing back against in that post was the failure to actually argue that any of the things he was worried about were likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 8:22 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

Good arguments, but this could be a turning point where things could go from civil to digressing into uncivil. And wellnamed has been very civil in his posts so far. I think this is where some people may feel taunted by conservative thinkers resorting to ad hom's. Something like this was mentioned in another thread so I just want to point out that it would do an argument justice to avoid going down that road. And eliminate that sort of complaint against those trying to voice opposing opinions towards left bent thinking. 

 

Yes, it's good that we are observing our new found civility,  but I don't see sarcasm against an argument as being an ad hominem.

 

ETA:  Having said that Josh,  I understand what you are are saying. Good points, thanks. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.