goodbye AAWA--good luck (page 10)

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Why debate the value in having a gold coin when there is doubt over whether it's gold or not?

“Of course scientifically and carefully conducted surveys are useful but they are extremely difficult to manage in practice even for companies that specialise in the field. Of course I know what the value in good information is but again, this is not relevant to the discussion.

“The debate is not about whether a good survey is useful or not, but whether the actual survey that we're talking about constitutes a good survey or not and is thus of any value beyond mere entertainment and opinion reinforcement purposes (or 'propaganda').

“Most 'good' surveys can say what their margin of error is and why and also what the demographic of their sample was and why. Without such things how are we to know whether it is good or not? Are we to just assume?

“Couldn't anyone claim anything they wanted in a survey unless there were clear and sound methods behind it?”

Simon,

I asked: Do you know for WHAT and HOW such a survey collection is useful, or not?

What you write above says, in other words, no.

1. I’ve not spoken to what value—gold or not-gold—a survey can have. I’ve asserted that even bad information can provide for a useful survey if that information is collected consistently and at consistent intervals.

2. I don’t understand what you mean by “scientific and carefully conducted” except that surveys with consistent means and methods, and conducted at consistent intervals are sufficient to yield useful information.

3. If Cedar’s survey contains data collected consistently in means and methods, and was collected at consistent intervals then it’s useful. Apparently you don’t know why.

4. “Claiming anything” is not a survey of data collected consistently in means and methods and collected at consistent intervals.

You’re not talking about what I’m talking about.

Worse, you’ve taken time to characterize me based on a demonstrably inept perspective of what I’ve actually written.

So what are you talking about?

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Marvin - take a read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_poll and...”

Besty,

I read it. I’m otherwise familiar with the subject.

So what?

It does not change or challenge a thing I’ve said.

Marvin Shilmer

zed is dead

JWSurvey = GIGO.

zed

james_woods

Good Lord, Marvin - are you looking back and really reading again what you are saying here?

For one thing, you are off topic...

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Marvin - are you looking back and really reading again what you are saying here?”

james_woods,

I’m very familiar with what I’ve written.

Are you?

“For one thing, you are off topic...”

I’ve engaged what was before me to read. No more. No less.

My foray into the subject arose from a mistaken idea that the sort of survey Cedar attempts manifests an operational delusion. It doesn’t.

Marvin Shilmer

soontobe

So they are doing mini-surveys. Cool. They can serve some sort of purpose, such as what kinds of things people who are fed up enough with the Watchtower to visit the AAWA page think on specific teachings or policies. However, due to selection bias, I don't see how they could credibly be held as representative of JWs as a whole. I think most JWs think what they are told to think, but I don't have a scientific survey to back that up.

Simon

Marvin: Whatever ... I have better things to do than continue a pointless debate with someone who I think is going out of their way to misinterpret things while refusing to answer what I think are very clear and simple questions. So feel free to interpret this as "you win again" (yay).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_poll is a perfect description of what some are labelling 'surveys' and clearly describes the difference between scientific survey methods and self-selecting polls which are of dubious value to most people.

Tylinbrando

"ding ding ding"

Simon

My foray into the subject arose from a mistaken idea that the sort of survey Cedar attempts manifests an operational delusion. It doesn’t.

And of course you can prove it's mistaken by ... questioning what other people may or may not know about the value of suveys?

I think there is some delusion going on here though.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Marvin: Whatever ... I have better things to do than continue a pointless debate with someone who I think is going out of their way to misinterpret things while refusing to answer what I think are very clear and simple questions.”

Simon,

I’ve answered the questions you presented to me. If not, what have I omitted?

As for misinterpretation, I take what people write for what it actually says. I stopped trying to interpret what folks express online a long, long time ago.

What’s amazing to me is how much folks are willing to talk about something they apparently don’t understand.

When it comes to asking questions, readers who’ve objected to things I’ve said regarding surveys have yet to ask the right question or questions.

“So feel free to interpret this as "you win again" (yay).”

Simon, that’s a deliberate insult issued to me. I hope it made you feel better to put it out there, and I’m glad I was here to absorb it for your pleasure. It serves no purpose otherwise.

“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_poll is a perfect description of what some are labelling 'surveys' and clearly describes the difference between scientific survey methods and self-selecting polls which are of dubious value to most people.”

And that link has not a single thing to do with a single thing I’ve said here. More to the point, information at that link neither changes nor challenges a word I’ve said. That you apparently think so is telling. Yet you go on and on as you do regardless.

Marvin Shilmer

goodbye AAWA--good luck

Share this