A CDC research paper out today breaks down what we know about suicide by professions (scroll down to Tables 1 and 2). There's some interesting and important stuff here. Also read this story, which alerted me to the original paper.
First, as a university professor, Table 1 caught my eye as "students" are #6 on the list, which is scary with 665 suicides reported. Keep in mind this is a count of all suicides regardless of how many people are in that category. Among students, 74 percent of suicides were by males. No surprise that the bulk of the student suicides are in the 16-24 age cohort.
OK, but there are a lot more students than fishermen, for example, so Table 2 is a better tool for understanding the problem. According to Table 2, in terms of per 100,000 population, the worst occupational group for suicide is farming, fishing, and forestry. The top three occupations are all physical jobs and "production" at #4 is probably the same. The highest "white collar" job is at #5 for architecture and engineering.
Students don't show up on Table 2 and, best I can tell, are not folded into any other occupational group.
Given I'm a journalism prof I looked for that occupation, but it appears to be folded into a broad "Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media" category that comes in at #7 with 24.3 suicides per 100,000.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Finding Out About Science
Here's an interesting couple of questions from the General Social Survey. Note the slight differences.
What I'm curious about is how often people shift their source of info when "global warming" pops up versus the more generic "science and technology." And I'm really curious as to whether certain types of folks (religious, conservative, etc.) are even more likely to downshift from mainstream news to other sources when that magic phrase "global warming" appears on their radar.
For example, 18.2 percent of respondents identified newspapers or magazines as a generic source of science info, but only 9.9 percent identified these two sources for more specific "global warming or biotechnology." The internet was a generic source of 31.4 percent, but when we get specific about global warming it jumps to 56.3 percent. That's big. (Nerd Note: I'm collapsing these results across the six years these two questions were asked).
As a further example, among those who identified newspapers as a generic science source, only 29 percent identified it as a specific global warming or biotech source. A lot of these "newspaper" generic folks shifted to the internet as a source (36.6 percent of them). The rest are scattered among other sources. Something about "global warming or biotechnology" sent these newspaper folks scurrying to the net. Among strong Republicans, 40.7 percent left newspaper for the internet, while among strong Democrats only 28.3 percent went to the internet. In other words, GOPers were more likely to go to a source with more personal control, one where they were perhaps more likely to seek out sources that they prefer, when the "global warming" thing appeared.
Here's a quick and dirty breakdown with only the three top sources provided. Note there are few real differences. The two are party IDs are about the same on generic, but GOPers jump up on the internet as a source. Still strong partisans both name it first on the more specific question, it's just that Republicans lean even more heavily that way. Newspapers disappear from the top three when it gets specific.
Generic Science Sources
Strong Democrats: 38.1 percent TV, 28.1 percent internet, 11.7 percent newspapers.
Strong Republicans: 37.2 percent TV, 31.3 percent internet, 10.2 percent newspapers.
Specific (global warming) Sources
Strong Democrats: 50.5 percent internet, 22.1 percent TV, 9.0 percent books
Strong Republicans: 56.3 percent internet, 19.0 percent TV, 8.0 percent books.
We are interested in how people get information about science and technology. Where do you get most of your information about science and technologyThe first question is generic, the "science and technology," while the second aims specifically at "global warming or biotechnology." The two questions have identical response alternatives (answers). The answers were newspapers, magazines, the internet, books, TV, radio, government agencies, family and friends, and "other."
If you wanted to learn about scientific issues such as global warming or biotechnology, where would you get information
What I'm curious about is how often people shift their source of info when "global warming" pops up versus the more generic "science and technology." And I'm really curious as to whether certain types of folks (religious, conservative, etc.) are even more likely to downshift from mainstream news to other sources when that magic phrase "global warming" appears on their radar.
For example, 18.2 percent of respondents identified newspapers or magazines as a generic source of science info, but only 9.9 percent identified these two sources for more specific "global warming or biotechnology." The internet was a generic source of 31.4 percent, but when we get specific about global warming it jumps to 56.3 percent. That's big. (Nerd Note: I'm collapsing these results across the six years these two questions were asked).
As a further example, among those who identified newspapers as a generic science source, only 29 percent identified it as a specific global warming or biotech source. A lot of these "newspaper" generic folks shifted to the internet as a source (36.6 percent of them). The rest are scattered among other sources. Something about "global warming or biotechnology" sent these newspaper folks scurrying to the net. Among strong Republicans, 40.7 percent left newspaper for the internet, while among strong Democrats only 28.3 percent went to the internet. In other words, GOPers were more likely to go to a source with more personal control, one where they were perhaps more likely to seek out sources that they prefer, when the "global warming" thing appeared.
Here's a quick and dirty breakdown with only the three top sources provided. Note there are few real differences. The two are party IDs are about the same on generic, but GOPers jump up on the internet as a source. Still strong partisans both name it first on the more specific question, it's just that Republicans lean even more heavily that way. Newspapers disappear from the top three when it gets specific.
Generic Science Sources
Strong Democrats: 38.1 percent TV, 28.1 percent internet, 11.7 percent newspapers.
Strong Republicans: 37.2 percent TV, 31.3 percent internet, 10.2 percent newspapers.
Specific (global warming) Sources
Strong Democrats: 50.5 percent internet, 22.1 percent TV, 9.0 percent books
Strong Republicans: 56.3 percent internet, 19.0 percent TV, 8.0 percent books.
Cops Hitting Citizens
It's not a hot topic at the moment, but we've had lots of controversy about how police deal with citizens, particularly African-American citizens. I was messing with General Social Survey data today on something else entirely and came across this question asked from 1973 to 2014. It asks:
But this fails to capture the obvious question -- in what situations would this be OK? Luckily those data are available as well. When we get specific, the numbers drop.
Race makes a difference (duh). While over time about three-quarters of whites say there are situations where an officer should strike a citizen, rarely is the number above half for black respondents.
Where's the media angle? I don't have much of one as GSS asks crappy media questions. Watching television is slightly, but statistically, more likely to make you say no, as does reading the news. It's not a huge relationship and would probably disappear if I controlled for other factors like race, education, and the like.
Are there any situations you can imagine in which you would approve of a policeman striking an adult male citizen?Two-thirds of American adults are OK with this. Still, there's been a slight decrease in the percent who say "yes" to this question (see graphic below). The high was 79.3 percent in 1983 and the low is 2014, at 66.1 percent. The trend, ever so gently, is down.
But this fails to capture the obvious question -- in what situations would this be OK? Luckily those data are available as well. When we get specific, the numbers drop.
- Far fewer believe someone using vulgar or abuse language is reason enough for an officer to strike a citizen. The percent who say "yes" to this is about one-in five in the early years but down to 8.9 percent by 2014. That's a significant drop.
- A murder suspect isn't much of a reason either, according to the data. Only 8.5 percent said it was OK back in 1973, but it's climbed in later years to about 14 percent saying "yes."
- Attempting to escape appears to be perfectly acceptable, however, with three fourths saying it was OK in early years and two-thirds saying so by 2014.
- Finally, the survey asked what if the citizen attacked the cop first with his fists, OK then to strike them? Seems obvious and over nine-out-of-10 respondents agreed. Still, 97 percent said so back in 1973 and only 88 percent said so by 2014, so even that reason has gone down.
Race makes a difference (duh). While over time about three-quarters of whites say there are situations where an officer should strike a citizen, rarely is the number above half for black respondents.
Where's the media angle? I don't have much of one as GSS asks crappy media questions. Watching television is slightly, but statistically, more likely to make you say no, as does reading the news. It's not a huge relationship and would probably disappear if I controlled for other factors like race, education, and the like.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
New Poll Says It's A Tie
A new Quinnipiac poll out today says the U.S. presidential race is a statistical tie, with Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 42 - 40 percent. Given the poll's 2.4 percent margin of error, that's a statistical tie. This is surprising given one recent poll had Clinton up by as much as 12 percentage points, another up by 5 percentage points.
This poll will cause gnashing of teeth among Clinton fans and exuberance among Trump supporters. Trump, who complained that polls are biased and underestimate his strength, will finally have one he can appreciate.
My message is this -- never pay much attention to any single poll. Look at the poll average, which in one case has Clinton up 6.2 percentage points. I mention this not to mollify the Clintonites or piss off the Trumpsters, just to say that the rolling average, especially so early in the campaign, is a better guide. Any single poll can be quirky, so buyer beware.
This poll has a helluva sample, 1,610 respondents, and was weighted to reflect region of the country, gender, education, age, and race. It called landline and cell phones. There's little to quibble with, methodologically. And of course the usual caveat comes to play, that the election is not about nationwide votes but rather electoral votes state by state. Yes, I know.
NerdStuff
Poll Details here
Additional methodological details here
This poll will cause gnashing of teeth among Clinton fans and exuberance among Trump supporters. Trump, who complained that polls are biased and underestimate his strength, will finally have one he can appreciate.
My message is this -- never pay much attention to any single poll. Look at the poll average, which in one case has Clinton up 6.2 percentage points. I mention this not to mollify the Clintonites or piss off the Trumpsters, just to say that the rolling average, especially so early in the campaign, is a better guide. Any single poll can be quirky, so buyer beware.
This poll has a helluva sample, 1,610 respondents, and was weighted to reflect region of the country, gender, education, age, and race. It called landline and cell phones. There's little to quibble with, methodologically. And of course the usual caveat comes to play, that the election is not about nationwide votes but rather electoral votes state by state. Yes, I know.
NerdStuff
Poll Details here
Additional methodological details here
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Post Brexit, and Regrexit
I've written before about how asking people who they think is going to win is often more accurate than the traditional survey asking respondents who they are for.
In the case of Brexit -- this didn't work.
As these SurveyMonkey data collected after the historic vote demonstrate, more people expected Remain to win. Here's the basic breakdown. I don't have access to the "don't knows" or refusals or such, so percentages reflect the prediction based on respondents who answered this question.
In the case of Brexit -- this didn't work.
As these SurveyMonkey data collected after the historic vote demonstrate, more people expected Remain to win. Here's the basic breakdown. I don't have access to the "don't knows" or refusals or such, so percentages reflect the prediction based on respondents who answered this question.
- Remain win by a lot (434, or 11.7%)
- Remain win by a little (2,659, or 71.7%)
- Leave win by a little (476, or 12.8%)
- Leave win by a lot (138, or 3.7%)
The percentages above do not equal 100 due to rounding.
OK, that's all well and good. Brits are lousy prognosticators. Turns out, 80 percent of those who said they voted to Leave also expected Leave to win. But among those who voted to Remain, only 55 percent thought their side would win.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Science
Should science be used to solve our problems? The easy answer seems yes, but not everyone agrees. There's this question in the 2012 ANES:
When trying to solve important problems, how often should the government rely on scientific approaches?First, let's look at the distribution of responses. I have weighted the data to reflect the general population parameters, so this differs from the raw numbers and percents.
- Never (239, or 4.4 percent)
- Some of the Time (1,807, or 33.6 percent)
- About Half of the Time (1,351, or 25.1 percent)
- Most of the Time (1,471, or 27.3 percent)
- Always (511, or 9.5 percent)
If you score this as a 1-to-5 variable, with 1 being "never" and 5 "always," you get a mean of 3.0 and standard deviation of 1.1. It has a reasonable distribution.
As you'd expect, certain factors are negatively associated with a belief in science being used to solve our problems. Below are some correlations. To explain, a negative number means the greater that variable, the less you support scientific approaches to solve problems. A positive coefficient means the greater that variable, the more you support such approaches. Below the table, my comments.
Variables
|
Correlation
|
Born-Again Christian
|
-.15*
|
Attend Religious Services
|
-.16*
|
Pray
|
-.15*
|
Religion as Guide
|
-.17*
|
Literal Bible
|
-.19*
|
Age
|
-.09*
|
Education
|
.23*
|
Income
|
.09*
|
Party ID (GOP high)
|
-.14*
|
Ideology (conservative)
|
-.22*
|
TV News Exposure
|
-.06*
|
Fox News Viewing
|
-.11*
|
Internet News
|
.13*
|
Paper Newspaper Read
|
-.01
|
Vocabulary
|
.17*
|
Asterisks signify statistical significance. The first batch of variables are the obvious ones -- religious, and all are negatively associated with the notion that government should rely on scientific solutions to solve our problems. No big surprise that the more you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, for example, the less you believe in government using scientific approaches to solve problems.
The next small group is demographic. Older respondents are less trusting of science, while those with more education or income prefer a scientific approach. Then comes partisanship and ideology and it's no surprise that the more Republican or conservative you are, the less enamored you are with scientific approaches. The media variables demonstrate the difference between those who rely on television news (and especially Fox News) and those who rely on Internet-based news. Finally, the "Vocabulary" variable is a test of one's vocabulary, just what it sounds like. No surprise those who score higher on this also are more willing to use scientific approaches.
The next small group is demographic. Older respondents are less trusting of science, while those with more education or income prefer a scientific approach. Then comes partisanship and ideology and it's no surprise that the more Republican or conservative you are, the less enamored you are with scientific approaches. The media variables demonstrate the difference between those who rely on television news (and especially Fox News) and those who rely on Internet-based news. Finally, the "Vocabulary" variable is a test of one's vocabulary, just what it sounds like. No surprise those who score higher on this also are more willing to use scientific approaches.
I'm just messing with data, trying to decide whether a more comprehensive analysis is justified. I can say a quick-and-dirty regression analysis finds some factors drop out (income, prayer, television news) when controlling for all the other factors. The single most powerful predictor is education (beta = .17, p<.001). The most powerful negative predictor is ideology (beta = -.12, p<.001). Even with all these controls, watching Fox News remains a negative predictor (beta = -.04, p<.01) and Internet news reading a positive predictor (beta = .05, p<.001).
Oh, and just for fun, I found that watching The Big Bang Theory is unrelated to a belief in whether the government should use scientific methods to solve problems. No idea what that means. Just passing it along.
Addendum
I calculated an index based on four items designed to measure moral traditionalism. For example, one question asks
Oh, and just for fun, I found that watching The Big Bang Theory is unrelated to a belief in whether the government should use scientific methods to solve problems. No idea what that means. Just passing it along.
Addendum
I calculated an index based on four items designed to measure moral traditionalism. For example, one question asks
The world is always changing and we should adjust our view of moral behavior to those changes.The other items are similar and they all hang together nicely as an index (Cronbach's Alpha = .71 for you stats nerds out there). The correlation between moral traditionalism and science to solve problems is -.26, p<.001, stronger than any item above. In the regression analysis it dominates compared to other factors, with beta = -.14, p<.001.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Trump Doubt
A fresh CNN/ORC poll is out and there's no real change in who people predict will win the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The poll asked this question in a poll in the field March 17-20 and again a few days ago (June 16-19). "Regardless of who you support," it asks, "and trying to be as objective as possible, who do you think will win the election in November if these are the candidates on the ballot -- Hillary Clinton or Donald
Trump?"
So no difference on expectations on Clinton, but a drop for predictions of a Trump victory (4 percentage points). This could be the tough campaign stretch Trump suffered, shaking not only some of his support but also predictions he can eventually pull it off. Call this Trump Doubt.
As I wrote yesterday in more detail about the March poll, you can break these down further. The new poll also includes, deep down, crosstabs on this question by gender, political party, age, etc. Here's what jumps out at me in comparing the two polls via their crosstabs:
Among Trump supporters, the percentage who predicted he would win dropped from 88 percent in March to 78 percent in June. That's startling.
It's not unusual for people to believe their own candidate will win. Three-fourths of Mitt Romney supporters believed so in 2012. But to see a 10 percentage point drop in belief he will win, that says more in some ways than merely asking people their preference.
June Poll
March Poll
Clinton
Win |
Trump
Win |
Other
etc. |
|
June Poll
|
55
|
38
|
6
|
March Poll
|
56
|
42
|
2
|
So no difference on expectations on Clinton, but a drop for predictions of a Trump victory (4 percentage points). This could be the tough campaign stretch Trump suffered, shaking not only some of his support but also predictions he can eventually pull it off. Call this Trump Doubt.
As I wrote yesterday in more detail about the March poll, you can break these down further. The new poll also includes, deep down, crosstabs on this question by gender, political party, age, etc. Here's what jumps out at me in comparing the two polls via their crosstabs:
Among Trump supporters, the percentage who predicted he would win dropped from 88 percent in March to 78 percent in June. That's startling.
It's not unusual for people to believe their own candidate will win. Three-fourths of Mitt Romney supporters believed so in 2012. But to see a 10 percentage point drop in belief he will win, that says more in some ways than merely asking people their preference.
June Poll
March Poll
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)