Prejudice??

[plato]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Hmmm, is this a bid to get "guilty whites" to vote Obama again to prove they are not?

http://centurylink.net/news/read.php...org%3E&ps=1018

The way it's presented......Yes.

Looking inside (thanks to BKKMAN), there's a different "big picture".

The groups "less liked" in 2012, are the Black, White, and Hispanic groups . That's with an increase of both Black and Hispanic numbers in the polled group.

And, the opinion on other matters not related to race is also increasingly negative. My own humble conclusion would be an overall pissed-off populace, except for the glaring change in the composition of the sample over two years.

In the 2010 sample 2% of the participants were separated, while 24% were single (and probably "starry-eyed"). In the 2012 sample that 2% separated increased to 24% separated. (Enough to invalidate all findings)
When she's asking for half of the pool table, a man has a right to hate anybody he chooses.

Note the growing number of persons who decline to give an answer when it comes to matters involving race. Are we becoming that PC or even worse, actually afraid to speak?

[ZonieDiver]

...or even worse, actually afraid to speak?

I think that may be true. I know a number of people 'residing' at various points of the political spectrum of which that is the case. They just DO NOT talk about it in public, or semi-public. (By 'it' I mean their political beliefs.)

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line,
the man comes and takes you away.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line,
the man comes and takes you away.

One of the songs that defines our generation, ZD - Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" - but you would've had to have been there to appreciate it - glad nobody had to deal with any prejudicial issues, riots, voter fraud, bureaucratic incompetency, economic stagnation and high unemployment, lengthy wars, corporate greed, etc in our time.

What's wrong with these kids today!!?!??!

And so it goes...

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

[COLOR="lime"]What's wrong with these kids today!!?!??!

And so it goes...

Richard

What's wrong with them is, they were raised by sissified, libdemon parents and taught to lose their ambition and to celebrate diversity by sissified, libdemon teachers who were the former students of communist professors-for the most part.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pete

Lot of perception questions. Since most folks don't interact a great deal with other races outside of work - the work interaction, what is presented to them through social media and just "who" they run into at the mall lot will greatly color that perception.

So answering those questions the "wrong" way make a person racist?

Your point about workplace interaction suggests (at least to me) that these kinds of polls would benefit from additional questions about (a) the type of work respondents do, (b) how they get to the work place, and (c) how they occupy their minds during their commute.

Originally Posted by plato

Note the growing number of persons who decline to give an answer when it comes to matters involving race. Are we becoming that PC or even worse, actually afraid to speak?

Note that in many cases, the response is "Refused/Not Answered", not "Declined." Without knowing why people did not do something, is it wise to speculate why they didn't? For example, a person could conceivably not answer a poll question she doesn't understand, or she would have opted for a "I don't know" option. (FWIW, page 34 provides some details on the way the poll was administered.)

[plato]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Note that in many cases, the response is "Refused/Not Answered", not "Declined." Without knowing why people did not do something, is it wise to speculate why they didn't? For example, a person could conceivably not answer a poll question she doesn't understand, or she would have opted for a "I don't know" option. (FWIW, page 34 provides some details on the way the poll was administered.)

Page 34 establishes a name for their processing and a copyrite for that name. It really provides nothing else.

The process uses volunteers who are paid to complete the survey. The responses of the compensated volunteers are weighted if, in GfK's view they do not represent an accurate cross-section of the US. There are a number of discrepencies that point to how screwed up the DfK effort was, but I'll try to stick to the subject.

Past surveys, similar in 2008, and identical in 2010, had a 1% "Refused" that grew to a 3% "Refused" and then in 2012 to a 9% "Refused" in categories of race. A 900% difference in American reading comprehension over 4 years? I don't think so.

As for the difference between "Decline" and "Refuse", I decline to try to find the differences if any. Or possibly, I refuse. Maybe both.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by plato

Page 34 establishes a name for their processing and a copyrite for that name. It really provides nothing else.

FWIW, the copy of the poll I downloaded read the following on page 34.

METHODOLOGY

The survey was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then are sent emails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research.

The GfK Group

The GfK Group offers the fundamental knowledge that industry, retailers, services companies and the media need to make market decisions. It delivers a comprehensive range of information and consultancy services in the three business sectors Custom Research, Retail and Technology and Media. GfK, one of the leading market research organizations worldwide, operates in more than 100 countries and employs over 11,000 staff. In 2010, the GfK Group’s sales amounted to EUR 1.29 billion. For further information, visit our website: www.gfk.com. Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gfk_group.

From reading the above, I am of the view that the poll had been taken using a methodology different than the one you described as follows:

Originally Posted by plato

The process uses volunteers who are paid to complete the survey. The responses of the compensated volunteers are weighted if, in GfK's view they do not represent an accurate cross-section of the US. There are a number of discrepancies that point to how screwed up the DfK effort was, but I'll try to stick to the subject.

Past surveys, similar in 2008, and identical in 2010, had a 1% "Refused" that grew to a 3% "Refused" and then in 2012 to a 9% "Refused" in categories of race. A 900% difference in American reading comprehension over 4 years? I don't think so.

As for the difference between "Decline" and "Refuse", I decline to try to find the differences if any. Or possibly, I refuse. Maybe both.

By my reading of the METHODOLOGY, "Refused/Not Answered" might include the non responses of those who did not fill out the survey at all or who did not respond to specific questions. Notice that the answers to each questions only indicate the percentage of responses for each answer, but do not provide the number responding to each question (n). This method of reporting invites readers to conclude that the total number of respondents (N) replied to every question.

[plato]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, the copy of the poll I downloaded read the following on page 34.
From reading the above, I am of the view that the poll had been taken using a methodology different than the one you described as follows:
By my reading of the METHODOLOGY, "Refused/Not Answered" might include the non responses of those who did not fill out the survey at all or who did not respond to specific questions. Notice that the answers to each questions only indicate the percentage of responses for each answer, but do not provide the number responding to each question (n). This method of reporting invites readers to conclude that the total number of respondents (N) replied to every question.

METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then are sent emails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research.

I peeled it back a bit further. There are questions in the survey that had zero "Refused/Not Answered". I take that to mean that there were no persons who simply did not respond.
There is also a particular effort to dig into minority neighborhoods and homes where there is no "land-line" phone. The sample is no longer random or scientific. It is designed, based on the judgement of the researcher.

I have no hard data to back it up, but I am strongly inclined to believe that an impoverished family of four would be more inclined to trade their time for a few dollars each, some laptops, and internet access than would the family of an established physician. Again, no hard data, but I think the logic is there.

And, look at the most glaring flaws. In 2010, 2 percent of the population was separated from a spouse, but in 2012 the separated population grew to 24 percent. Statistically, the likelihood of that is near zero. Seventy-five percent of the single population got married during those two years. Also, 80% of those who were widowed had former spouses rise from the dead. (5% vs 1%). Yes, that's a logical leap for the sake of humor

Still, in choosing "substitutes" for weighting the group to reach an "appropriate mix", someone did a horrible job.

I headed an organization used to review all Rand studies that related to military ground equipment. You'd be surprised at how many of the respected analysis organizations deserve a sound "WTF?"" We corrected more than 80% for significant errors in judgement/procedure.