by bigmac 203 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
“Got to admit - few people can "push buttons" as effectively as Marvin.”
sir82,
I confess ignorance to why people see button-pushing when they should be asking better questions and refraining from interpreting what I say at the expense of what I’ve actually said.
Folks should stop trying to read my mind and instead read what I’ve put to pen. In the end, that’s the cause of frustration insofar as I can see.
Marvin Shilmer
can i have my thread back please
So, Marvin, you said:
Information that may at face-value appear flawed is very useful so long as it’s consistently collected at intervals. In the end this is where usefulness of Cedar’s survey is to be found.
It sounded like you were saying that Cedars survey was useful but it seems you are not? Which makes me wonder what you are actually arguing for.
You now add:
Wrong. I have not asserted Cedar’s survey was/is consistent in means, method and interval. You read that onto what I wrote.
I'm sure you can appreciate why it would appear that you are tacking on more and more clauses to your original claim of what constitutes a useful survey which distracts from the point of whether the survey in question is of value. I interpret this as:
"IF Cedars survey met the criteria to be classed as consistent in means, method and interval then it would be of value and a useful survey."
Or, condensed to:
"IF Cedars survey met the criteria of a good survey then it would be of value and a useful survey"
Or:
"IF Cedars survey was a good survey, then it would be a good survey"
So, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Is it that a bad survey can be a good survey? That seems counter intuitive to me and I'm sure to most other people.
There is still no evidence that it satisfies the criteria above nor is there evidence that even if it did it would be anything more than a self-selecting poll that even if consistent, will only deliver results of little value. Because it's not really a survey, certainly not a 'good' survey.
If a unit of information that’s “just plain wrong” at face value is collected the same way at consistent intervals it can be useful for analyzing the positioning of whatever is producing that unit of information.
That reminds me of this:
Except it should say "Yep, it's still wood"
My point is that it’s not delusional for Cedar to attempt a survey as he does and think it useful.
I'm not debating that. I agree 100% - it applies to practically all human endeavor (but at some point along the curve things do become delusional)
But selling it as a scientific survey would be misrepresenting it.
The values (sums, results et al) you get from this may or may not tell you anything at all about the general population of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it can tell you a lot about the population set targeted by the survey
It is actually portrayed as representing "what Jehovahs Witnesses think about the WTS and the governing body". Maybe that is why it was questioned? The population set targeted by the 'survey' would seem to be JWs but I presume you are saying that it tells us something about ex-JWs instead?
If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just have a survey to target them and wouldn't it be better received if its description then matched?
can i have my thread back please
Sorry !
My MIL is a real JW. She took the survey. I am neither DF'd or DA'd. I took the survey. I can't imagine we are the exception.
You are the exception if you are posting here and talking about it to each other.
It is "off limits" behavior for totally obedient JWs.
And everybody here knows that.
I think there will always be a spectrum of behavior (with obvious clusters) so you can't say that answering the survey and being a real JW are not consistent, just that it's not likely or typical.
-
Simon,
Certainly I understand someone could conclude the sentence of mine you quoted as an assertion that Cedar’s survey is found useful rather than is to be found useful, and that based on consistency et al. But to conclude that way without asking is presumptive.
“It sounded like you were saying that Cedars survey was useful but it seems you are not?”
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
My point is what I originally attempted to convey. It’s false to suggest what Cedar attempts with his survey manifests delusion.
“There is still no evidence that it satisfies the criteria above nor is there evidence that even if it did it would be anything more than a self-selecting poll that even if consistent, will only deliver results of little value.”
It does not matter what we term the action at issue. What’s important is what it does and does not do, or what it can and cannot do.
Otherwise, your statement above ignores the value of following movements of a population by sample. If movement of a given population is something important to a person or persons then having a tool to measure that movement is not of little value.
One more thing, it would be a mistake to think how a survey is publicly presented suggests the value to/for whoever undertook the survey, or its usefulness to anyone else for reasons of their own. Each survey dataset has its own usefulness for different reasons to different people.
As for Bruce Hoadley, he understands what I write above and it’s one reason why from time to time he has conducted simple surveys of given populations.
Marvin Shilmer
-
“But selling it as a scientific survey would be misrepresenting it.”
Simon,
Agreed. But to the best of my knowledge no one has suggested Cedar’s survey is scientific.
Notwithstanding, we can make scientific use of unscientific matter, including unscientific surveys.
“It is actually portrayed as representing "what Jehovahs Witnesses think about the WTS and the governing body".”
It’s a mistake to take presentation of a survey as it’s actual value to whoever designed it.
In the case of Cedar’s survey, it is related to things “Jehovah’s Witness” hence in some respect it could represent something useful about Jehovah’s Witnesses. But in more precise terms his survey speaks to whatever is his means and methods, including whatever population that means and methods extracts information from.
“If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just have a survey to target them and wouldn't it be better received if its description then matched?”
That depends on what you’re attempting to measure.
Otherwise, as a general statement it’s fairly safe to say that any survey could be better designed.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin, if you'd tried having this rather tedious little tete a tete with Cedars about 6 months ago he would have cried to the mods and Simon and (had he not already had two posters banned) likely have tried in all earnestness to have you kicked for persecution / stalking / harrassment etc?
And I wouldnt blame him. FFS give it up man, you are looking more and more like a blithering idiot.
-
“So, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Is it that a bad survey can be a good survey? That seems counter intuitive to me and I'm sure to most other people.”
Simon,
I think the following sentence captures what may be at the heart of what “seems counter intuitive”:
- Unscientific matter, including unscientific surveys, can be used scientifically with scientific results.
This “unscientific matter” is what I refer to earlier simply as “bad information” when I said, “even bad information can provide for a useful survey if that information is collected consistently and at consistent intervals.”
Marvin Shilmer
