Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 23, 2018 22:59:43 GMT -5
Come one, come all! A fun-filled 5-minute survey to pick your brains about the contentious political issues of the day. The survey is put together by me using KwikSurvey, and I need YOU to fill it out. The more data we get, the better. Not a member? Don't post on P/CE? No worries! The last page asks some questions to categorize responses. On a mobile device? Again, no worries! The survey should work there too. Take the Survey!Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or problems taking the survey. I'll leave it up for a week and then post the results sometime next week.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Jan 24, 2018 8:38:34 GMT -5
Questions: Why are you doing this? What are you going to do with the information? Why is it better to get more data? Isn't this too small of a group and not randomly selected, so no matter how much data we get, it's useless?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 24, 2018 8:49:54 GMT -5
Why do I feel like this will be used against me?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 9:04:04 GMT -5
Four reasons mainly: - I want to see whether the responses given by P/CE "regulars" reflect the opinions of i) the P/CE readership and ii) the forum readership.
- I want to see how tightly correlated perception of the scandals is to political leaning and preference for Pres. Trump. That is: how much of the difference in perception is explainable due to political orientation?
- I want to see how tightly correlated perception of the scandals is amongst themselves. That is: do respondents rate e.g. all left wing scandals consistently high or low as a block, or are they highly selective as to which ones concern them?
- I want to know the extent to which our community considers the DNC hacks and the Trump team surveillance a service to the American people, in spite of any legality issues. Are we a "rest on our principles" community, an "ends justify the means" community, or comfortably between the two?
It will also give us a rough idea of which scandals have more traction than others in our corner of cyberspace. I often wonder if the scandals that get the most attention post-wise are purely an artifact of our P/CE bubble (with relatively few major contributors). We can't survey the great wide world, but we can at least confirm that more than a handful of locals care about particular scandals.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 9:08:05 GMT -5
Why do I feel like this will be used against me? You don't have to submit any identifying information if you don't want to. The "Categorization" page does ask for members to submit their ID, which I was planning to attach to data points in the plots for P/CE regulars who didn't object, but the submission is voluntary. I'll be objective in the presentation of the results.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2018 9:24:18 GMT -5
Virgil, you really need someone else to help design this survey, because I already hate your #1 and #2 questions. They would garner at best garbage data from non conservatives. I know some people keep telling themselves all of this is Trump centric, but most of us non Trumpers care far more about the truth. Did individuals collude with Russia? If so, how, how much, and is it criminal? This is your first question- Rate the following statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment." For me its unratable. I don't know what they will find, and I choose not to guess. All I am fairly certain on is they will find something as they already have. Exhibit A Manafort. So no his staff will not be cleared, at least certain individuals so the second question is useless and again Trump centric.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 9:50:46 GMT -5
Virgil, you really need someone else to help design this survey, because I already hate your #1 and #2 questions. They would garner at best garbage data from non conservatives. I know some people keep telling themselves all of this is Trump centric, but most of us non Trumps care far more about the truth. Did individuals collude with Russia? If so, how, how much, and is it criminal? This is your first question- Rate the following statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment." For me its unratable. I don't know what they will find, and I choose not to guess. All I am fairly certain on is they will find something as they already have. Exhibit A Manafort. So no his staff will not be cleared, at least certain individuals so the second question is useless and again Trump centric. It's regrettable that you don't like the question, but it was intentionally designed to focus on Pres. Trump and impeachable offenses. Later in the survey I ask about Trump Jr., Kushner, Flynn, and others. The spectrum ranges from 0 (Absolutely Not) to 10 (Absolutely), with those extremes clearly labeled. It stands to reason (in my mind at least) that total uncertainty about what the investigation will uncover warrants a response of 5. A 5 implies you're equally certain (or uncertain, if you prefer) the probe will uncover an impeachable offense as you are certain (uncertain) it will uncover nothing.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 24, 2018 10:25:26 GMT -5
Virgil, you really need someone else to help design this survey, because I already hate your #1 and #2 questions. They would garner at best garbage data from non conservatives. I know some people keep telling themselves all of this is Trump centric, but most of us non Trumps care far more about the truth. Did individuals collude with Russia? If so, how, how much, and is it criminal? This is your first question- Rate the following statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment." For me its unratable. I don't know what they will find, and I choose not to guess. All I am fairly certain on is they will find something as they already have. Exhibit A Manafort. So no his staff will not be cleared, at least certain individuals so the second question is useless and again Trump centric. I stopped at that question. Because I simply don’t know. I cannot simp,y agree with that statement and I cannot disagree. So I simp,y stopped.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2018 10:28:14 GMT -5
Virgil, you really need someone else to help design this survey, because I already hate your #1 and #2 questions. They would garner at best garbage data from non conservatives. I know some people keep telling themselves all of this is Trump centric, but most of us non Trumps care far more about the truth. Did individuals collude with Russia? If so, how, how much, and is it criminal? This is your first question- Rate the following statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment." For me its unratable. I don't know what they will find, and I choose not to guess. All I am fairly certain on is they will find something as they already have. Exhibit A Manafort. So no his staff will not be cleared, at least certain individuals so the second question is useless and again Trump centric. It's regrettable that you don't like the question, but it was intentionally designed to focus on Pres. Trump and impeachable offenses. Later in the survey I ask about Trump Jr., Kushner, Flynn, and others. The spectrum ranges from 0 (Absolutely Not) to 10 (Absolutely), with those extremes clearly labeled. It stands to reason (in my mind at least) that total uncertainty about what the investigation will uncover warrants a response of 5. A 5 implies you're equally certain (or uncertain, if you prefer) the probe will uncover an impeachable offense as you are certain (uncertain) it will uncover nothing. I won't take the survey as written. I would have to do mental gymnastics to even answer 4 of the first 5 questions. Only #3 on Mueller is not a conclusion seeking a level of agreement.
Here's the basic problem. I don't know what will be uncovered. I choose to wait and see, so I don't want to become biased just to answer your questions. It would take me a long time to take this survey if I chose to because I'd be changing how I think about these issues entirely just to answer your questions. And then its no longer a survey, its me trying to fit into the boxes you think we all fall into.
I haven't thought at all about the odds of them finding an impeachable offense for Trump. It is not my top focus for this investigation. Your number 5 explanation though doesn't work for me. I wouldn't want to characterize my opinion of them finding something on Trump as 50/50 odds which is really what you seem to be saying. And even worse, you want me to grade that on an impeachable offense no less. No thank you. My views are that Trump is more likely to be implicated in this than when they first started and other than that I choose not to pick odds.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2018 10:39:33 GMT -5
Come one, come all! A fun-filled 5-minute survey to pick your brains about the contentious political issues of the day. The survey is put together by me using KwikSurvey, and I need YOU to fill it out. The more data we get, the better. Not a member? Don't post on P/CE? No worries! The last page asks some questions to categorize responses. On a mobile device? Again, no worries! The survey should work there too. Take the Survey!Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or problems taking the survey. I'll leave it up for a week and then post the results sometime next week. I'll take the survey after you publish your last survey's results.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 11:23:03 GMT -5
Virgil, you really need someone else to help design this survey, because I already hate your #1 and #2 questions. They would garner at best garbage data from non conservatives. I know some people keep telling themselves all of this is Trump centric, but most of us non Trumps care far more about the truth. Did individuals collude with Russia? If so, how, how much, and is it criminal? This is your first question- Rate the following statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment." For me its unratable. I don't know what they will find, and I choose not to guess. All I am fairly certain on is they will find something as they already have. Exhibit A Manafort. So no his staff will not be cleared, at least certain individuals so the second question is useless and again Trump centric. I stopped at that question. Because I simply don’t know. I cannot simp,y agree with that statement and I cannot disagree. So I simp,y stopped. Answer 5 (totally undecided) or somewhere else in the middle of the spectrum that reflects your opinion on the relative likelihood of the two outcomes. You don't have to assert conclusions with certainty, and the question is by its nature speculative. If you don't want to speculate, you needn't worry about tainting the results by expressing this in the form of a mid-spectrum vote.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 11:33:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to characterize my opinion of them finding something on Trump as 50/50 odds which is really what you seem to be saying. For the purposes of this survey, for any issue where you've never contemplated the odds or relative likelihood of either outcome, please feel free to express this as a mid-spectrum vote. I make no distinction between "5" as rigorous, analytically-determined 50/50 odds and "5" as an admission of total ignorance or unwillingness to speculate. Distinguishing between these extremes would require each question to be followed up by an associated question about confidence, and the survey is long enough as it is. If you're not willing to speculate on anything in the survey, however, I suppose there's no purpose in taking it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 11:36:27 GMT -5
Come one, come all! A fun-filled 5-minute survey to pick your brains about the contentious political issues of the day. The survey is put together by me using KwikSurvey, and I need YOU to fill it out. The more data we get, the better. Not a member? Don't post on P/CE? No worries! The last page asks some questions to categorize responses. On a mobile device? Again, no worries! The survey should work there too. Take the Survey!Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or problems taking the survey. I'll leave it up for a week and then post the results sometime next week. I'll take the survey after you publish your last survey's results. Right. Keep forgetting that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2018 11:47:28 GMT -5
I'll take the survey after you publish your last survey's results. Right. Keep forgetting that. I know. And I hope you know I am teasing you.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 24, 2018 11:49:25 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to characterize my opinion of them finding something on Trump as 50/50 odds which is really what you seem to be saying. For the purposes of this survey, for any issue where you've never contemplated the odds or relative likelihood of either outcome, please feel free to express this as a mid-spectrum vote. I make no distinction between "5" as rigorous, analytically-determined 50/50 odds and "5" as an admission of total ignorance or unwillingness to speculate. Distinguishing between these extremes would require each question to be followed up by an associated question about confidence, and the survey is long enough as it is. If you're not willing to speculate on anything in the survey, however, I suppose there's no purpose in taking it. I don't want to speculate. It won't codify what I feel about these scandals. It will change it. And its totally going to mess up your graphs if you count I refuse to speculate/IDK with the same weight as I think there is a 50% chance of finding an impeachable offense. They are vastly different beliefs.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 12:34:58 GMT -5
They are vastly different beliefs. In a sense, yes. In the sense of answering "How many members are certain it won't happen, how many are certain it will happen, and how many either don't know or don't care to speculate?", the difference is irrelevant. Ironically, for someone as concerned about speculation (baseless or otherwise) as you're claiming to be, you speculate as much as anyone else on P/CE, often with a great deal of certainty. If I had all the time and money in the world, I wouldn't bother to ask members to self-report. I'd hire a team to comb through each member's posts and populate the dataset based on an analysis of everything they've said on each issue. I'm confident your rating on Q1 wouldn't come back anywhere near 5 based on such an analysis, but it's quite possible that, for whatever reason, the certainty expressed in your words consistently belies uncertainty in your thoughts. In any case, asking you to self-report is the best I can do. Since there are so few P/CE regulars, I was especially hoping that you all would indulge me in filling out the survey. Otherwise we don't get a representative sample of the P/CE contributorship, meaning the results won't accurately reflect the environment we live through in P/CE day after day.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 24, 2018 15:36:43 GMT -5
That is creepy.
|
|
tyfighter3
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:01:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,806
|
Post by tyfighter3 on Jan 24, 2018 15:59:28 GMT -5
I think you should wait till the Nunes Memo comes out. It will show you where the REAL scandal is.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 24, 2018 16:46:46 GMT -5
I think you should wait till the Nunes Memo comes out. It will show you where the REAL scandal is. I doubt it. No matter what happens, we will never agree on a truth. I doubt most of us will know more than a cursory explanation of what all happened. Just as there are a bunch of people who think Hillary literally got away with murder, there will be plenty of people who will never believe the results of this investigation, no matter what the results are.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,206
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Jan 24, 2018 18:46:45 GMT -5
Questions are slanted. Will not participate.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 24, 2018 19:10:06 GMT -5
I stopped at that question. Because I simply don’t know. I cannot simp,y agree with that statement and I cannot disagree. So I simp,y stopped. Answer 5 (totally undecided) or somewhere else in the middle of the spectrum that reflects your opinion on the relative likelihood of the two outcomes. You don't have to assert conclusions with certainty, and the question is by its nature speculative. If you don't want to speculate, you needn't worry about tainting the results by expressing this in the form of a mid-spectrum vote. Taking a pass
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 24, 2018 19:30:27 GMT -5
I don’t want my name made apparent to mods.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 20:35:32 GMT -5
I don’t want my name made apparent to mods. You don't have to submit your member ID if you don't want to. If you did, I'll take this as your request to omit your name from any labeled data.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 24, 2018 20:38:03 GMT -5
Okay
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 20:51:01 GMT -5
Questions are slanted. Will not participate. Can you be more specific? If your concern is that you believe the Mueller investigation will turn up evidence of wrongdoing not necessarily tied to Pres. Trump or not necessarily impeachable, please see Reply #6 above. I suppose I could have added a question, "Do you believe the probe will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing of any kind, pertaining to anyone?" but this strikes me as too broad to yield meaningful results. Moreover, the answer is obviously "yes" if we include Mr. Kushner's lying to the FBI, etc.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 24, 2018 21:10:59 GMT -5
I think we should all go and answer what we think Paul would say.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 24, 2018 21:12:06 GMT -5
Snow leopards? Really?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 24, 2018 21:24:01 GMT -5
I don't trust that my answers won't be twisted & used against me at a later date at the whims of "someone" here.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,047
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Jan 24, 2018 21:50:38 GMT -5
Questions: Why are you doing this? What are you going to do with the information? Why is it better to get more data? Isn't this too small of a group and not randomly selected, so no matter how much data we get, it's useless? I predict bimodal distributions requiring nonparametic modeling.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2018 21:53:02 GMT -5
I don't trust that my answers won't be twisted & used against me at a later date at the whims of "someone" here. Don't identify yourself, then. If you don't supply a member ID or if you ask to not have your data labeled, I do hereby swear I will not label your data or otherwise associate them with you. I'll take your previous post as your formal request to not have your data labeled unless you say otherwise. I freely disclaim: members who submit their IDs and don't opt out of labeling open themselves to potential future criticism--by anybody--if they make definite predictions and those predictions ultimately turn out to be wrong. This didn't stop me from submitting my own feelings on where things are headed with my ID attached, but if you're worried about having to fend off "You thought X would happen and it didn't." accusations in future, omitting your ID or opting out of labeling is the option for you.
|
|