Pew has a science quiz (to go with it's jillion other quizzes) that allows you to test your knowledge against the test itself and see how you stack up with others.
By the way, I got 12 of 13 right. Fear me.
Don't cheat, but here's the report based on a random sample. Scroll down and you'll find different ways they break down the results (gender, education, etc.). There are also questions asking people where they think the kids in the U.S. stand in terms of science knowledge. Interestingly, more get that wrong (44 percent say we're at the bottom in the world) than right (35 percent who said we're in the middle). An overly optimistic 7 percent thinks we're "top."
Monday, September 30, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Surprised Losers -- First Look at the Data
My present research project really has two primary questions:
Okay, so how about a first blush of the results?
These are rough results. Really rough. And all they do is look at how winners in the elections (2000 thru 2008 so far, sorry) differ from two kinds of losers -- the expected losers, and the surprised ones. The dependent variables are trust in government, the perceived responsiveness of government (cares about people like you think), and satisfaction with democracy. Oh, and whether the election was fair.
Political Trust -- Not much here so far. In 2004 winners had higher trust than surprised losers (but not expected losers). That's it.
Responsiveness -- Mostly working here. Winners higher than losers, but not a lot of difference between surprised losers and expected losers. Damn.
Satisfaction with Democracy -- Yes, working here, kinda. In 2004 surprised losers far below expected losers and winners. Woo hoo! In 2008, both kinds of losers below winners. Damn.
Election Fair -- Only two times was this asked, 2000 and 2004. In general surprised losers much lower than expected losers and winners. So a good start.
I've only begun toying with media variables and so far it's too early to say which hypothesis, if either of them, wins.
I'm putting off the 2012 data because it's still messy and I'm working to get an updated version, somewhat cleaner, before tackling the initial analyses. Plus I'm stumped by my media variables and exactly how to test my competing hypotheses above.
- Are losers in prez elections who were surprised they lost (expected their guy to win) less trusting of government and democracy than losers who expected to lose, or winners?
- Two competing media hypotheses: (1) people selectively expose themselves to news that supports their beliefs, thus enhancing the "surprised loser" effect above; or (2) news consumption exposes one to polls that makes you less surprised you lost, thus depressing the "surprised loser" effect above.
Okay, so how about a first blush of the results?
These are rough results. Really rough. And all they do is look at how winners in the elections (2000 thru 2008 so far, sorry) differ from two kinds of losers -- the expected losers, and the surprised ones. The dependent variables are trust in government, the perceived responsiveness of government (cares about people like you think), and satisfaction with democracy. Oh, and whether the election was fair.
Political Trust -- Not much here so far. In 2004 winners had higher trust than surprised losers (but not expected losers). That's it.
Responsiveness -- Mostly working here. Winners higher than losers, but not a lot of difference between surprised losers and expected losers. Damn.
Satisfaction with Democracy -- Yes, working here, kinda. In 2004 surprised losers far below expected losers and winners. Woo hoo! In 2008, both kinds of losers below winners. Damn.
Election Fair -- Only two times was this asked, 2000 and 2004. In general surprised losers much lower than expected losers and winners. So a good start.
I've only begun toying with media variables and so far it's too early to say which hypothesis, if either of them, wins.
I'm putting off the 2012 data because it's still messy and I'm working to get an updated version, somewhat cleaner, before tackling the initial analyses. Plus I'm stumped by my media variables and exactly how to test my competing hypotheses above.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
The Tedium of Research
I'm working on this big research project spanning four U.S. presidential elections and I'm hip deep in that tedious yet nerdishly appealing stage of writing scripts to extract data, recode it, and run initial analyses. If you have no idea what that means, you're among the few, the lucky few.
I have a basic analysis of only 2000. I'm working on the same analysis of 2004. It's damn slow going -- and that's by someone who is really good at SPSS and wrestling with large datasets. Do not try this at home. No, really. Don't. UGA has a neat virtual lab setup that includes accessing SPSS from your home box, but after test driving the thing with a modestly-sized set of data, it's my recommendation you do not try this at home. Too slow, too clunky. Reminds me of my days on a 300-baud modem accessing the mainframe.
I have a basic analysis of only 2000. I'm working on the same analysis of 2004. It's damn slow going -- and that's by someone who is really good at SPSS and wrestling with large datasets. Do not try this at home. No, really. Don't. UGA has a neat virtual lab setup that includes accessing SPSS from your home box, but after test driving the thing with a modestly-sized set of data, it's my recommendation you do not try this at home. Too slow, too clunky. Reminds me of my days on a 300-baud modem accessing the mainframe.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Reporting, Opinion, and Al Jazeera
There's a neat Pew analysis out of how Al Jazeera America differed -- or actually didn't -- from the other cable news outlets in how it covered Syria, the first major story since the network premiered. The other outlets are BBC America, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.
Mostly, Al Jazeera looks a lot like the other networks. One columnist made a big deal of this in USAToday but he misses the point, that on a huge story like this there are only so many ways you can report it, that where Al Jazeera tends to not look like its cable brethren is in its other stories. Fewer talking head programs, less partisan hackery. Give him points for stating the obvious, lifted from the Pew report, but no points for nuance and journalistic understanding.
You can even see a neat breakdown of reporting vs. opinion on the networks (it's the final graf of the study, reproduced below).
This is telling. CNN continues to dominate when it comes to reported news and Fox tends to come in last in the same category, or perhaps a statistical tie with MSNBC, but if so it's not by much. To say Al Jazeera looks like the rest is kinda missing yet another point. In the reported vs. opinion category, it actually does not look like CNN, and it is positioned to out-CNN CNN. That's the lede.
Mostly, Al Jazeera looks a lot like the other networks. One columnist made a big deal of this in USAToday but he misses the point, that on a huge story like this there are only so many ways you can report it, that where Al Jazeera tends to not look like its cable brethren is in its other stories. Fewer talking head programs, less partisan hackery. Give him points for stating the obvious, lifted from the Pew report, but no points for nuance and journalistic understanding.
You can even see a neat breakdown of reporting vs. opinion on the networks (it's the final graf of the study, reproduced below).
This is telling. CNN continues to dominate when it comes to reported news and Fox tends to come in last in the same category, or perhaps a statistical tie with MSNBC, but if so it's not by much. To say Al Jazeera looks like the rest is kinda missing yet another point. In the reported vs. opinion category, it actually does not look like CNN, and it is positioned to out-CNN CNN. That's the lede.
An N of 74 is a Survey?
I like to pick on bad surveys. Today's victim example comes from a newspaper just down the road -- Gainesville, Ga. -- that reports on a survey with an N of 74. In other words, 74 respondents. Collected over a month and a half. From a web site.
Yes, 74. As in, if you do the math, at best an 11 percent margin of error. As in, useless. Because the 74 aren't even random folks. It's a SLOP.
Here's the lede:
Indeed, read what the consultant says in the next couple of grafs. "Take it for what it is,” said a consultant. “It’s folks who chose to get on the Web page to give you a response. It is another form of input.”
That's consultant-speak for "this survey is complete bullshit, but it's kinda interesting bullshit, just another data point, but not a good one."
Journalists -- if it's bullshit, don't report it. Or if you report it, raise immediate critical concern in your lede that anyone would rely on this in deciding how to spend millions of hard-earned tax dollars. Instead the story goes at great lengths to report various percentages from the "survey" results. Sigh.
Yes, 74. As in, if you do the math, at best an 11 percent margin of error. As in, useless. Because the 74 aren't even random folks. It's a SLOP.
Here's the lede:
Two of six key projects in the Gainesville master transportation plan have solid support, while residents are divided over a project involving a new bridge over Lake Lanier, according to online survey results released by the city’s consultant in the effort.So you're thinking okay, a dull but straightforward story. The lede's a bit long but not terrible. I'd grade it a B-, maybe a C+. Until the second graf, that is:
The survey involved 74 responses to questions posted July 1-Aug. 15 on the city’s website.A whopping 74 responses? Over such a long period, from a city website? In the lede you tell me it's an online survey and I might be forgiven for thinking that it's a real survey, a scientific survey, one with a decent sample and credibility. Basically the second graf would be improved by saying "a completely useless piece of crap."
Indeed, read what the consultant says in the next couple of grafs. "Take it for what it is,” said a consultant. “It’s folks who chose to get on the Web page to give you a response. It is another form of input.”
That's consultant-speak for "this survey is complete bullshit, but it's kinda interesting bullshit, just another data point, but not a good one."
Journalists -- if it's bullshit, don't report it. Or if you report it, raise immediate critical concern in your lede that anyone would rely on this in deciding how to spend millions of hard-earned tax dollars. Instead the story goes at great lengths to report various percentages from the "survey" results. Sigh.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Are Religious People Patriotic?
Fun with 2012 data. Here's the question:
That last one is interesting and heartening except, as you'll see below, not as much as you'd like.
The real differences seem to emerge in the "not at all" classification, the bottom of the patriotic pile. The folks seen not at all patriotic. For Muslims, it's 33.8 percent. As a comparison, for Catholics, it's only 10.5 percent and for non-religious, it's 13.5 percent. In other words, one-third of U.S. adults see Muslims as not at all patriotic, a number far and away above the other religious categories or even those damned-to-Hell non-religious folks.
By the way, on a separate question of all the above groups asking how violent they are, 7.9 percent see violent as describing Muslims "very well." About 1 percent see violent as describing Protestants "very well."
How well does the word 'patriotic' describe most non-religious people [Extremely well, very well, moderately well, slightly well, or not at all / not at all, slightly well, moderately well, very well, or extremely well]?The answer? No surprise, really. Those non-religious people, they ain't patriotic, at least according to a national sample of U.S. adults. In fact, 2-out-of-5 see non-religious people as slightly or not at all patriotic. Below, the numbers (data weighted to be representative of the U.S. population).
- Extremely Well -- 3.8 percent
- Very Well -- 13.8 percent
- Moderately Well -- 35.7 percent
- Slightly -- 23.6 percent
- Not at All -- 13.5 percent
That last one is interesting and heartening except, as you'll see below, not as much as you'd like.
The real differences seem to emerge in the "not at all" classification, the bottom of the patriotic pile. The folks seen not at all patriotic. For Muslims, it's 33.8 percent. As a comparison, for Catholics, it's only 10.5 percent and for non-religious, it's 13.5 percent. In other words, one-third of U.S. adults see Muslims as not at all patriotic, a number far and away above the other religious categories or even those damned-to-Hell non-religious folks.
By the way, on a separate question of all the above groups asking how violent they are, 7.9 percent see violent as describing Muslims "very well." About 1 percent see violent as describing Protestants "very well."
Al Jazeera
With a big splash, but with less audience, Al Jazeera premiered recently as the kinda sorta next big thing in U.S. cable news. The network vowed to focus on hard news, as opposed to the crap often seen on other cable networks (I'm talking about you, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC).
But what do people think about the network? Not much, if you believe this survey of over 8,000 respondents, and I especially like how they broke it down by state, including red states versus blue states, which you can pull off when your N is so big. Scroll down the page to find the maps.
Warning -- best I can tell, this is not a random sample. I can't tell at all how they got their respondents and that is, indeed, worrisome. That said, the numbers make sense.
Oh, you can see the raw data yourself on a Google docs page. Download it, if ya like, and crank away, though there's nothing there they don't show you on their graphs and maps.
Warning -- best I can tell, this is not a random sample. I can't tell at all how they got their respondents and that is, indeed, worrisome. That said, the numbers make sense.
Oh, you can see the raw data yourself on a Google docs page. Download it, if ya like, and crank away, though there's nothing there they don't show you on their graphs and maps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)