I can't it's come to this, me writing about dentistry. Here's a recent story about a survey on what people know about their mouths. Why would I go on about this? Hey, it's the holiday season: sweets are getting eaten, eggnog is getting drank, and that last thing we want to think about is our oral hygiene.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Making Good Citizens
Does teaching citizenship actually work? A large study in the U.K. suggests it does.
I've skimmed the entire study (possibly not available to you), published this month in Parliamentary Affairs, and I won't get into all the details. But the authors do a good job of tracing the history of this natural experiment, how they defined good citizenship, and most important -- how to measure their outcomes (are students who got the curriculum better students).
What I really like is among the outcome variables are measures of online participation as well as the traditional means of being a good citizen. That's neat. Table 5 really gets at the heart of the study, a series of multiple regression models predicting participation, knowledge, efficacy, and other key outcome variables. First off, they report the results oddly, leading with their variable of interest and then including all the control variables. But below lemme sum it all up:
I've skimmed the entire study (possibly not available to you), published this month in Parliamentary Affairs, and I won't get into all the details. But the authors do a good job of tracing the history of this natural experiment, how they defined good citizenship, and most important -- how to measure their outcomes (are students who got the curriculum better students).
What I really like is among the outcome variables are measures of online participation as well as the traditional means of being a good citizen. That's neat. Table 5 really gets at the heart of the study, a series of multiple regression models predicting participation, knowledge, efficacy, and other key outcome variables. First off, they report the results oddly, leading with their variable of interest and then including all the control variables. But below lemme sum it all up:
- Participation is best predicted by education, parental occupation, but also by being in the good citizenship curriculum even after a boatload of other statistical controls.
- Knowledge is best predicted parental education and trust and also by the curriculum.
- Efficacy (the sense you can make a difference) is affected by a lot of variables listed above and again by the new curriculum.
An end to compulsory citizenship classes will not of course mean an end to citizenship education in Britain, since some schools will continue to deliver it as part of their mission to educate the next generation. But the large differences observed in Figure 4 between England, where citizenship education has been compulsory, and the other UK countries where it has not been is bound to raise questions about the long-term consequences of this change of policy on civil society in general.
Friday, December 14, 2012
End Times vs Climate Change
More than one-third of Americans believe the recent crappy weather and natural disasters are a sign of the "end times." Not to be outdone, two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants think so.
This from a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute of 1,018 U.S. adults, including a segment by cell phone. There's a CNN version of the story here.
The good news, if there can be any good news? Six-in-10 Americans think the recent weather is a function of climate change. Some people, it seems, took science class.
It's a rather long breakdown of results, so take your time to work your way through them. There's also a pdf of the results. A few high points:
And the next question really gets at the crux of differences between religious beliefs and the environment. People were asked which statement they agree with more, whether God gave us complete rights to use animals and nature to benefit humans first, or whether God wants us to "live responsibly" with animals, plants and resources not necessarily just for human benefit. Thirty-eight percent believe nature is there for our benefit, 55 percent think it's there for us to nurture and maintain. The difference, of course, comes down to whether you accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, much of the results above can be traced to that.
This from a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute of 1,018 U.S. adults, including a segment by cell phone. There's a CNN version of the story here.
The good news, if there can be any good news? Six-in-10 Americans think the recent weather is a function of climate change. Some people, it seems, took science class.
It's a rather long breakdown of results, so take your time to work your way through them. There's also a pdf of the results. A few high points:
- Three-fourths of respondents think "there is solid evidence" the world is warming.
- Six-in-10 link such global warming to human activity.
- But 39 percent also agree "natural disasters are a sign from God."
And the next question really gets at the crux of differences between religious beliefs and the environment. People were asked which statement they agree with more, whether God gave us complete rights to use animals and nature to benefit humans first, or whether God wants us to "live responsibly" with animals, plants and resources not necessarily just for human benefit. Thirty-eight percent believe nature is there for our benefit, 55 percent think it's there for us to nurture and maintain. The difference, of course, comes down to whether you accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, much of the results above can be traced to that.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Fiscal Cliff
Search Google News and you'll get 93,300,000 hits on the phrase "fiscal cliff."
That's a lot of cliffs.
And of course you've got the usual puns, mostly of the tired "driving over the cliff" variety. Here's a rule about writing -- never go with the first idea that comes to mind. Driving over the cliff, that's sad. Diving off the cliff, not much better. Work at it, folks. As someone said: Good writing is a war with cliche. But this is isn't a blog about writing, so let's move on to the question of the day and that is, quite simply, does all this news coverage help or hurt politicians come to some reasonable solution?
In the help column, constant coverage by the cable news networks and pundits has to increase pressure on both sides to compromise. By the way, search for "fiscal cliff" and "compromise" and you get 93,000 hits. I find that comforting. We also know that constant coverage pushes the issue up in the public's agenda as important. Certainly we've seen a significant increase in the last few weeks, from polls, in how many people recognize the term and think it's a big deal.
In the hurt column, though, you can argue that all the coverage is pushing the political extremes and making it more difficult to reach a solution. From a theoretical perspective, you can argue that so much coverage (a lot of it, of modest quality) means reporters have to read tea leaves and see things that really aren't there, only making matters worse. Covering the "fiscal cliff" like a ballgame probably does more harm than good.
That's a lot of cliffs.
And of course you've got the usual puns, mostly of the tired "driving over the cliff" variety. Here's a rule about writing -- never go with the first idea that comes to mind. Driving over the cliff, that's sad. Diving off the cliff, not much better. Work at it, folks. As someone said: Good writing is a war with cliche. But this is isn't a blog about writing, so let's move on to the question of the day and that is, quite simply, does all this news coverage help or hurt politicians come to some reasonable solution?
In the help column, constant coverage by the cable news networks and pundits has to increase pressure on both sides to compromise. By the way, search for "fiscal cliff" and "compromise" and you get 93,000 hits. I find that comforting. We also know that constant coverage pushes the issue up in the public's agenda as important. Certainly we've seen a significant increase in the last few weeks, from polls, in how many people recognize the term and think it's a big deal.
In the hurt column, though, you can argue that all the coverage is pushing the political extremes and making it more difficult to reach a solution. From a theoretical perspective, you can argue that so much coverage (a lot of it, of modest quality) means reporters have to read tea leaves and see things that really aren't there, only making matters worse. Covering the "fiscal cliff" like a ballgame probably does more harm than good.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Political False Memories
People remember political events that never happened.
Not only that, a new study suggests the reason why has less to do with people guessing and more to do with false memories, especially on questions of a partisan nature.
The study was published in the more recent issue of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. Yeah, it's on my reading list.
As the authors note:
While "educated guessing" is one way to consider the answers people give to political knowledge tests, the authors suggest "the formation of false beliefs" is a more useful way to understand the answers people give. This explains other work that explores why people believe silly stuff like whether Obama is Muslim (my own research area), but also gets into misattribution -- that we attribute positions or events to candidates or political parties that aren't necessarily true, mainly to fit our own predispositions.
Not only that, a new study suggests the reason why has less to do with people guessing and more to do with false memories, especially on questions of a partisan nature.
The study was published in the more recent issue of Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. Yeah, it's on my reading list.
As the authors note:
Misinformation, in the form of a demonstrably false belief, is a prevalent phenomenon among American voters and such false beliefs tend to be held in high confidence by voters and are highly resistant to corrective information. (citations omitted)In other words, people believe what they want to believe.
While "educated guessing" is one way to consider the answers people give to political knowledge tests, the authors suggest "the formation of false beliefs" is a more useful way to understand the answers people give. This explains other work that explores why people believe silly stuff like whether Obama is Muslim (my own research area), but also gets into misattribution -- that we attribute positions or events to candidates or political parties that aren't necessarily true, mainly to fit our own predispositions.
Monday, December 10, 2012
What UGA Students (Don't) Know
There's a story on The Red & Black site about what UGA students know, or don't know, about current events. Two of my Grady colleagues are quoted at length. Are they right? Is there a lack of current events or political knowledge among the best and brightest that is the UGA student body? Does it even matter?
I'll try not to go all PhDweeb on what is my major research area and either support or correct my learned colleagues. Below, though, a few points to consider:
I'll try not to go all PhDweeb on what is my major research area and either support or correct my learned colleagues. Below, though, a few points to consider:
- Why keep up? There's an argument to be made for rational ignorance. Is the cost of keeping up worth the benefit you receive?
- College students have other things on their minds. Yes, their studies, but most likely other, more interesting things than the latest spat between Dems and GOPers. Makes sense that current events knowledge might rank as a lower priority.
- Are they really any less knowledgeable? Never extrapolate from a small, biased sample (your class). The research shows young folks have always sucked at political knowledge tests. Always. I'm not sure it's any better or worse today. Evidence beyond the anecdotal?
- Some majors are different. Yes, journalism students need to be informed of current events. Less so, other majors, though I can make good arguments why students in economics, etc., should be keeping up.
- Democratic theory relies on an informed public. I've used that line myself in a lot of published papers, and it's true -- to a degree. Problem is, choice plays a role here. We have so many other media choices now, other ways to occupy our time, and it's never been easier to escape the news. Marcus Prior has a terrific book on this subject. Strongly recommended. Unfortunately, we live in an era where obligation and responsibility don't sell.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Evil Shoppers
More than 1-in-5 respondents in a national survey say they shopped in a store on Thanksgiving Day.
No turkey for you, heathens.
Fourteen percent said they shopped online on the holiday. Two-thirds reported having a clue and doing no shopping that day.
Why am I going on about this? First, because I just stumbled across the survey, which was conducted from Nov. 29 - Dec. 3. Second, because I need to grade but I really don't want to -- thus this post.
Sixty-three percent say they did not use a mobile device while shopping. The other numbers were:
No turkey for you, heathens.
Fourteen percent said they shopped online on the holiday. Two-thirds reported having a clue and doing no shopping that day.
Why am I going on about this? First, because I just stumbled across the survey, which was conducted from Nov. 29 - Dec. 3. Second, because I need to grade but I really don't want to -- thus this post.
Sixty-three percent say they did not use a mobile device while shopping. The other numbers were:
- 14 percent said they used mobile devices to research products found in-store.
- 16 percent said they used them to compare prices
- 11 percent took pics or notes with their mobile device about products
- 19 percent used the phone as an actual phone (clearly not teenagers) and called people to ask about products they saw
- 7 percent were unsure. Not sure about what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)