![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Old School
May. 3rd, 2009 02:23 pmA weblog used to be just that, a log of interesting places one had found on the web.
So here is one.
The cup is already broken
So here is one.
The cup is already broken
May. 3rd, 2009
On Methods
May. 3rd, 2009 07:50 pmWe are a nation which has come to live by polls. Even those of us who discount (or even disregard them) have to live with the effects they have; because our elected representatives have come to rely on them, and our press corps to fetishise them (want to track the rise and fall of candidates for office, follow the polls. Want to predict when the guy who is willing to take the low-road will do it... look to the polls).
Polls, however, are tricky things. They can be skewed. Some are obvious... push polls aren't actually meant to measure public opinion, but shape it. The classic is the one George W. Bush used to torpedo John McCain in S. Carolina (I paraphrase: How would knowing John McCain had fathered a black love child affect your opinion of him: would you be more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or would there be no change in your chance of voting for him).)
Even when a poll isn't being driven by such intentions, how the questions are phrased can be very affective on the results. Take the recent Pew Poll on torture. We don't have all the questions (they have released some, but not all). One of them, and the answers to it, has been used to say, "religious people support torture," as well as to say the country is about evenly split on the subject.
I think neither conclusion can be fairly drawn from the results. Why? Because the question is full of some question begging assumptions, as well as building some answer framing assumptions in the mind of the respondent.
I say this because asking questions is what I did for a living. I did it as a reporter, and then I did it as an interrogator. As an editor I trained people to to a thorough job of getting facts to fill in the details, and the narrative of a story. I sent them back to get details they'd missed.
As an interrogator I was taught to do the same thing, in a far more organised, and orderly fashion. As an interrogation instructor I taught that same skill to people.
It's the last of those which did me the most good in learning to build questions. One teaches people to ask questions by answering them. Whatever the actual subject of the question was, I answered. Some of it seemed petty (esp. when I was the student).
"Can you spell your name?"
"Yes."
"Ok, do it."
"Do what"
"Spell your name."
"Y O U R N A M E" (we got very good at responsive spelling. Whatever came after, "spell" was going to be spelled out. Sometimes the students would use this to get back at us.... ever had someone ask you to spell syllogistic systems? That was the sort of thing some students did. It was irksome, but all in all not a bad thing. It showed both spirit, a sense of play, and an understanding of the systems they were learning to use, but I digress).
I did that for somewhere between 300-400 students, in the course of 14 years, as well as time teaching maintenance classes to my, and other, units. I got very good at building good questions, and at spotting the holes in bad ones.
Which is why I don't like this one in this poll (both are .pdf pages).
Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can
often be justified,
sometimes be justified,
rarely be justified,
or never be justified?
Whoo-Boy!.... how many ways can that be screwed up?
First, there are some inserted bits of information which shape the question. "Suspected terrorists" limits the group. It also calls into mind the prejudices of the respondent. I happen to think the most likely perpetrators of terrorism in the US are white males, between the ages of 25-40, who are right-wing in their politics, and a trifle fundamentalist in their religious views. This is based on the actual arrests of people planning terrorism in the US.
Then again, I think bomb threats to abortion clinics (and the shooting of providers), is terrorism, much of which flies below the radar of the terrorist threat in the press.
Then we have, "to gain important information". That trips the "ticking bomb" myth, the idea that the, "suspect" has this important information (which presupposes that this is only used on "real terrorists", since someone who isn't a terrorist can't give up "important information".
Which moves a whole lot of goalposts. If the person has important information they aren't suspects. Only people with, "important information" are included in the set they are being asked to think about torturing. If that's the case innocent people (such as the respondent, her family and friends) aren't going to be tortured.
If what we get is, "important information" then there is something we need to get. The implication is (again buried) that we know the person has this information, and only a person dedicated to hurting the US would refuse to give that information up.
All of which moves the odds of the question getting a positive response up.
Which makes the poll less useful than it might otherwise be.
The response choices don't help. The hypothetical (ticking bomb, important information, can be reliably extracted with torture) is one which is likely to incline someone to waffling. This is the whole point of the "ticking bomb" debating trick. It's the camel's nose.
"If lots of people are going to die, and doing this one slightly bad thing; out of pure necessity will prevent it, would you never do it, to save the innocent?" [which has in it the hidden statement that a guilty person is strapped to the table in front of you].
Of course you would... maybe you have lots of restrictions. You have to have proof the victim knows. It has to be lots of people; maybe it has to be a family member. All of those little things add up to increase the odds of the respondent copping to saying, "rarely justified," when in fact the caveats attached to that answer are so complex that the practical answer is never; but the honest respondent says to himself, "I might be willing to do it." (see Steven Barnes at Dar Kush who admits that, given the right set of incentives he'd be willing to cross that line. I disagree with a couple of his arguments (and you can see those in comments), but he's honest enough to look at it from a personal POV, as well as a structural one, and share the answers to both).
So, all things being equal, that poll is a piece of crap.
Polls, however, are tricky things. They can be skewed. Some are obvious... push polls aren't actually meant to measure public opinion, but shape it. The classic is the one George W. Bush used to torpedo John McCain in S. Carolina (I paraphrase: How would knowing John McCain had fathered a black love child affect your opinion of him: would you be more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or would there be no change in your chance of voting for him).)
Even when a poll isn't being driven by such intentions, how the questions are phrased can be very affective on the results. Take the recent Pew Poll on torture. We don't have all the questions (they have released some, but not all). One of them, and the answers to it, has been used to say, "religious people support torture," as well as to say the country is about evenly split on the subject.
I think neither conclusion can be fairly drawn from the results. Why? Because the question is full of some question begging assumptions, as well as building some answer framing assumptions in the mind of the respondent.
I say this because asking questions is what I did for a living. I did it as a reporter, and then I did it as an interrogator. As an editor I trained people to to a thorough job of getting facts to fill in the details, and the narrative of a story. I sent them back to get details they'd missed.
As an interrogator I was taught to do the same thing, in a far more organised, and orderly fashion. As an interrogation instructor I taught that same skill to people.
It's the last of those which did me the most good in learning to build questions. One teaches people to ask questions by answering them. Whatever the actual subject of the question was, I answered. Some of it seemed petty (esp. when I was the student).
"Can you spell your name?"
"Yes."
"Ok, do it."
"Do what"
"Spell your name."
"Y O U R N A M E" (we got very good at responsive spelling. Whatever came after, "spell" was going to be spelled out. Sometimes the students would use this to get back at us.... ever had someone ask you to spell syllogistic systems? That was the sort of thing some students did. It was irksome, but all in all not a bad thing. It showed both spirit, a sense of play, and an understanding of the systems they were learning to use, but I digress).
I did that for somewhere between 300-400 students, in the course of 14 years, as well as time teaching maintenance classes to my, and other, units. I got very good at building good questions, and at spotting the holes in bad ones.
Which is why I don't like this one in this poll (both are .pdf pages).
Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can
often be justified,
sometimes be justified,
rarely be justified,
or never be justified?
Whoo-Boy!.... how many ways can that be screwed up?
First, there are some inserted bits of information which shape the question. "Suspected terrorists" limits the group. It also calls into mind the prejudices of the respondent. I happen to think the most likely perpetrators of terrorism in the US are white males, between the ages of 25-40, who are right-wing in their politics, and a trifle fundamentalist in their religious views. This is based on the actual arrests of people planning terrorism in the US.
Then again, I think bomb threats to abortion clinics (and the shooting of providers), is terrorism, much of which flies below the radar of the terrorist threat in the press.
Then we have, "to gain important information". That trips the "ticking bomb" myth, the idea that the, "suspect" has this important information (which presupposes that this is only used on "real terrorists", since someone who isn't a terrorist can't give up "important information".
Which moves a whole lot of goalposts. If the person has important information they aren't suspects. Only people with, "important information" are included in the set they are being asked to think about torturing. If that's the case innocent people (such as the respondent, her family and friends) aren't going to be tortured.
If what we get is, "important information" then there is something we need to get. The implication is (again buried) that we know the person has this information, and only a person dedicated to hurting the US would refuse to give that information up.
All of which moves the odds of the question getting a positive response up.
Which makes the poll less useful than it might otherwise be.
The response choices don't help. The hypothetical (ticking bomb, important information, can be reliably extracted with torture) is one which is likely to incline someone to waffling. This is the whole point of the "ticking bomb" debating trick. It's the camel's nose.
"If lots of people are going to die, and doing this one slightly bad thing; out of pure necessity will prevent it, would you never do it, to save the innocent?" [which has in it the hidden statement that a guilty person is strapped to the table in front of you].
Of course you would... maybe you have lots of restrictions. You have to have proof the victim knows. It has to be lots of people; maybe it has to be a family member. All of those little things add up to increase the odds of the respondent copping to saying, "rarely justified," when in fact the caveats attached to that answer are so complex that the practical answer is never; but the honest respondent says to himself, "I might be willing to do it." (see Steven Barnes at Dar Kush who admits that, given the right set of incentives he'd be willing to cross that line. I disagree with a couple of his arguments (and you can see those in comments), but he's honest enough to look at it from a personal POV, as well as a structural one, and share the answers to both).
So, all things being equal, that poll is a piece of crap.
Think good thoughts
May. 3rd, 2009 08:00 pmMaia has her Boards tomorrow. If she passes them, she will be a Licensed Occupational Therapist (she won't be able to practice; that requires her to be licensed, and Registered (OT L/R), which is a bit of flummery where the exmining agency, forwards her results to the Licensing Board, which passes them on to the registry of licensed OTs, and they post it. Think of the Navy List before straight Seniority was done away with. One's standing on the list depended on how quickly one's commission to Post Captian was entered).
All that being beside the case, she is having lots stress about the test. I didn't get to see her much before I left, because she was studying, and drilling, to get ready. She took a practice test (online, just pay the money and you too can see how you stack up against the Board Examination for OT, or PT. Then, with a degree, and a fee of $545, you can take the test. If you don't pass, you can pay the fee and try again in 45 days. Repeat as needed until you pass).
So some good wishes, etc., sent her way can't hurt.
All that being beside the case, she is having lots stress about the test. I didn't get to see her much before I left, because she was studying, and drilling, to get ready. She took a practice test (online, just pay the money and you too can see how you stack up against the Board Examination for OT, or PT. Then, with a degree, and a fee of $545, you can take the test. If you don't pass, you can pay the fee and try again in 45 days. Repeat as needed until you pass).
So some good wishes, etc., sent her way can't hurt.
This is cool
May. 3rd, 2009 11:22 pmThe world is full of wonderful curiosities. One of the marvelous things about evolution is the way things which were "meant" for one thing, morph to become something else.
The same with technology. The net was meant to make it possible researchers to get aroud the limits on computing access back in the days of mainframes1. It has become a tool for those attempting to get information to each other, in the face of gov't opposition.
Or, in some cases, in the face of Mrs. Grundy's opposition.
The Birds and Bees Text Line, which the center started Feb. 1, directing its MySpace ads and fliers at North Carolinians ages 14 to 19, is among the latest efforts by health educators to reach teenagers through technology — sex ed on their turf.
Sex education in the classroom, say many epidemiologists and public health experts, is often ineffective or just insufficient. In many areas of the country, rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases remain constant or are even rising. North Carolina — where schools must teach an abstinence-only curriculum — has the country’s ninth-highest teenage pregnancy rate. Since 2003, when the state’s pregnancy rate declined to a low of 61 per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19, the rates have slowly been climbing. In 2007, that rate rose to 63 per 1,000 girls — 19,615 pregnancies.
In the last 15 years, school officials and politicians in many states rancorously debated whether sex-ed curriculums should mention contraception. Meanwhile, public health officials became alarmed about the fallout of risky adolescent sexual behavior and grappled with how to educate teenagers beyond the classroom.
And a lot of them, in the face of vocal opposition to Sex-ed; and under the weight of gov't intrusion to local interest, have opted for non-sex ed, in the form of "abstinence only" (by which they tell girls to keep their legs together, because boys only want one thing, and if they get it you are ruined for life).
Needless to say this bit of clever use of extant tech (one which the target audience are intimately acquainted, and perfectly comfortable with) is not going over well with the "keep 'em ignorant, and they won't get into 'trouble'" crowd.
That lack of oversight is what galls Bill Brooks, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “If I couldn’t control access to this information, I’d turn off the texting service,” he said. “When it comes to the Internet, parents are advised to put blockers on their computer and keep it in a central place in the home. But kids can have access to this on their cellphones when they’re away from parental influence — and it can’t be controlled.”
While some would argue that such programs augment what students learn in health class, Mr. Brooks believes that they circumvent an abstinence-until-marriage curriculum. “It doesn’t make sense to fund a program that is different than the state standards,” he said. (The State Legislature is now considering a bill permitting comprehensive sex education.)
Good luck with that. I can just see the scene.. "you are going to cancel my texts!!!!!!!!".
(I also, without sarcasm, wish them luck with getting comprehensive sex-ed).
There is no way to keep the carbonated hormones of youth from turning to sex. There is a way to keep the kids from thinking anal sex is safe (no, there isn't a risk of pregnancy, but there is one of STDs) or that AIDS is only a "Gay thing", or any of the other things the inexperienced wonder about sex.
They do wonder (I know I did. I don't really recall about what now, but I do know I wondered), and in places where the school district tells you, by implication, if nothing else, that you can't ask them; and the usual reticence of the young to ask their parents, this is a wonderful thing.
The same with technology. The net was meant to make it possible researchers to get aroud the limits on computing access back in the days of mainframes1. It has become a tool for those attempting to get information to each other, in the face of gov't opposition.
Or, in some cases, in the face of Mrs. Grundy's opposition.
The Birds and Bees Text Line, which the center started Feb. 1, directing its MySpace ads and fliers at North Carolinians ages 14 to 19, is among the latest efforts by health educators to reach teenagers through technology — sex ed on their turf.
Sex education in the classroom, say many epidemiologists and public health experts, is often ineffective or just insufficient. In many areas of the country, rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases remain constant or are even rising. North Carolina — where schools must teach an abstinence-only curriculum — has the country’s ninth-highest teenage pregnancy rate. Since 2003, when the state’s pregnancy rate declined to a low of 61 per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19, the rates have slowly been climbing. In 2007, that rate rose to 63 per 1,000 girls — 19,615 pregnancies.
In the last 15 years, school officials and politicians in many states rancorously debated whether sex-ed curriculums should mention contraception. Meanwhile, public health officials became alarmed about the fallout of risky adolescent sexual behavior and grappled with how to educate teenagers beyond the classroom.
And a lot of them, in the face of vocal opposition to Sex-ed; and under the weight of gov't intrusion to local interest, have opted for non-sex ed, in the form of "abstinence only" (by which they tell girls to keep their legs together, because boys only want one thing, and if they get it you are ruined for life).
Needless to say this bit of clever use of extant tech (one which the target audience are intimately acquainted, and perfectly comfortable with) is not going over well with the "keep 'em ignorant, and they won't get into 'trouble'" crowd.
That lack of oversight is what galls Bill Brooks, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “If I couldn’t control access to this information, I’d turn off the texting service,” he said. “When it comes to the Internet, parents are advised to put blockers on their computer and keep it in a central place in the home. But kids can have access to this on their cellphones when they’re away from parental influence — and it can’t be controlled.”
While some would argue that such programs augment what students learn in health class, Mr. Brooks believes that they circumvent an abstinence-until-marriage curriculum. “It doesn’t make sense to fund a program that is different than the state standards,” he said. (The State Legislature is now considering a bill permitting comprehensive sex education.)
Good luck with that. I can just see the scene.. "you are going to cancel my texts!!!!!!!!".
(I also, without sarcasm, wish them luck with getting comprehensive sex-ed).
There is no way to keep the carbonated hormones of youth from turning to sex. There is a way to keep the kids from thinking anal sex is safe (no, there isn't a risk of pregnancy, but there is one of STDs) or that AIDS is only a "Gay thing", or any of the other things the inexperienced wonder about sex.
They do wonder (I know I did. I don't really recall about what now, but I do know I wondered), and in places where the school district tells you, by implication, if nothing else, that you can't ask them; and the usual reticence of the young to ask their parents, this is a wonderful thing.