All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
You won't believe how I came out....this is the Pew Research Group...worthy of some discussion about their assumptions when creating questions...Schroedinger's cat
Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Disaffected typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.
Disaffecteds represent 9 percent of the American public, and 10 percent of registered voters.
Basic Description Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.ROTFLMAO
Defining Values Despite personal financial strain – and belief that success is mostly beyond a person’s control – Disaffecteds are the only moderate supporters of government welfare and assistance to the poor. Strongly oppose immigration as well as regulatory and environmental policies on the grounds that government is ineffective and such measures cost jobs.
Who They Are Less educated (70% have attended no college, compared with 49% nationwide) and predominantly male (57%). While a majority (60%) leans Republican, three-in-ten are strict independents, triple the national rate. Disaffecteds live in all parts of the country, though somewhat more are from rural and suburban areas than urban.
Lifestyle Notes Somewhat higher percentage report having a gun in the home than the national average, and 42% report someone in their house has been unemployed in the past year.
2004 Election Bush 42%, Kerry 21%. Nearly a quarter (23%) said they didn’t vote in the last election.
Party ID 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/LeanRep)
Media Use Disaffecteds have little interest in current events and pay little attention to the news. No single medium or network stands out as a main source.
Note: All descriptions and percentages are based on the national sample of adults surveyed by telephone in December.
In the overall typology there is a ninth group called “Bystanders” who are defined as adults who are not registered, who do not follow news about government and public affairs, and who say they rarely or never vote.
Virtually every single description of me by result is WRONG, obviously including classification. One is compelled to wonder WHY?
“…this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.”
"... 59% report having a gun in their homes ..."
I'll have to catch up with the Jones on that one (but Mr. Bloomberg isn't too fond of the idea.)
Huh... I am an enterpriser too - even though I did not mark myself as a strong republican (strong conservative yes...).
This indicates to me that they really have not separated the party/philosophy questions in their system.
Two other things: 1) These questions are typical survey questions which start with a bias whether or not they intend to do so. Some of the questions pose false dilemmas - in particular playing off diplomacy against military strength. The wired-in assumption is that it is not possible/desireable to have/do both. (HOGWASH!) 2) There is no "neutral" or middle choice available. No fence sitting permitted. This is intentionally polarizing and as such can unjustifiably amplify opinion.
Pasto- the questioners (IMHO) CANNOT envision a non -straight own the line doctrinaire (modern) liberal or conservative..thus if you harbor any 'a plague on both their houses' feelings - you must be alienated. They cannot conceive that those who are pissed off and estranged by doctrinaire dogmatic stupidities get MORE engaged, and follow things minutely. They cannot conceive that just because the government was GOOD for civil rights (once upon a time) you harbor a huge mistrust of govt. They cannot conceive of one being IN FAVOR of immigration AND a secure border so the questions cannot encompass this properly, nor the resultant explanations.
Their internal prejudices have dictated the interpreation of results, therefore, it's not science ... too bad, and disappointing for us, it means Pew is not up to snuff by my light.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Rob's point was good as well.
Thing is, I hold complex opinions on most issues. I'm anti-illegal immigration, and I'm married to an immigrant, for instance. I believe in conflict resolution, and I think that the world will get better in the future with more education in that area, but at the same time, I think there are few more dangerous paradigms than Peace Studies.
It definitely shows the limitation of surveys in general and the Pew Center’s surveys in particular. I’ve quoted the Pew Center many times since they are one of the few that do surveys in Islamic countries. But I have always had questions about their questions. For example, they record levels of “hate” but they don’t delve into the nature of that hate. There’s deep-seated hate and there’s manipulated hate; the later is quite common in Arab societies. Saying “I hate you” may be a way of manipulating your behavior. I’d like to see a break down. And these are they only two ways of breaking-down the “feeling.”
Zogby also did a survey in Arab countries. All of these surveys showed that the people regurgitate the opinion of their state-controlled media. They prove nothing except what we already know about the powerful in control of those countries. Zogby also included a “blank question” and those results were more interesting but I don’t think he understood them. He found there was resentment against the US proportional, from the distance of oil wealth. The theme was “you only love us for our oil” and it was expressed most by those that had none. Had he reflected on the matter he would have detected a “manipulated hate” that seeks to get concessions because they have nothing else to offer. But despite coming from an Arab background (or because of it) he couldn’t see the next step in an inquiry.
These surveys also don’t measure intransigence. Are those surveyed wedded to their positions or can they be swayed. Thus, the Pew surveys show majority of support for bin Laden in many locations. But is it a deep commitment to his cause or a symbolic manner of saying “fuck you”. Inquiring minds want to know.
8 comments:
Epaminondas' results ...
Disaffected
Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Disaffected typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.
Disaffecteds represent 9 percent of the American public, and 10 percent of registered voters.
Basic Description
Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.ROTFLMAO
Defining Values
Despite personal financial strain – and belief that success is mostly beyond a person’s control – Disaffecteds are the only moderate supporters of government welfare and assistance to the poor. Strongly oppose immigration as well as regulatory and environmental policies on the grounds that government is ineffective and such measures cost jobs.
Who They Are
Less educated (70% have attended no college, compared with 49% nationwide) and predominantly male (57%). While a majority (60%) leans Republican, three-in-ten are strict independents, triple the national rate. Disaffecteds live in all parts of the country, though somewhat more are from rural and suburban areas than urban.
Lifestyle Notes
Somewhat higher percentage report having a gun in the home than the national average, and 42% report someone in their house has been unemployed in the past year.
2004 Election
Bush 42%, Kerry 21%. Nearly a quarter (23%) said they didn’t vote in the last election.
Party ID
68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/LeanRep)
Media Use
Disaffecteds have little interest in current events and pay little attention to the news. No single medium or network stands out as a main source.
Note: All descriptions and percentages are based on the national sample of adults surveyed by telephone in December.
In the overall typology there is a ninth group called “Bystanders” who are defined as adults who are not registered, who do not follow news about government and public affairs, and who say they rarely or never vote.
Virtually every single description of me by result is WRONG, obviously including classification. One is compelled to wonder WHY?
I'm an "Enterpriser" -- self-reliant.
“…this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.”
"... 59% report having a gun in their homes ..."
I'll have to catch up with the Jones on that one (but Mr. Bloomberg isn't too fond of the idea.)
Epa,
I had the same exact result and it does not describe me in the least.
How strange?!?
Huh... I am an enterpriser too - even though I did not mark myself as a strong republican (strong conservative yes...).
This indicates to me that they really have not separated the party/philosophy questions in their system.
Two other things:
1) These questions are typical survey questions which start with a bias whether or not they intend to do so. Some of the questions pose false dilemmas - in particular playing off diplomacy against military strength. The wired-in assumption is that it is not possible/desireable to have/do both. (HOGWASH!)
2) There is no "neutral" or middle choice available. No fence sitting permitted. This is intentionally polarizing and as such can unjustifiably amplify opinion.
Rob
Pasto- the questioners (IMHO) CANNOT envision a non -straight own the line doctrinaire (modern) liberal or conservative..thus if you harbor any 'a plague on both their houses' feelings - you must be alienated. They cannot conceive that those who are pissed off and estranged by doctrinaire dogmatic stupidities get MORE engaged, and follow things minutely. They cannot conceive that just because the government was GOOD for civil rights (once upon a time) you harbor a huge mistrust of govt. They cannot conceive of one being IN FAVOR of immigration AND a secure border so the questions cannot encompass this properly, nor the resultant explanations.
Their internal prejudices have dictated the interpreation of results, therefore, it's not science ... too bad, and disappointing for us, it means Pew is not up to snuff by my light.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Rob's point was good as well.
Thing is, I hold complex opinions on most issues. I'm anti-illegal immigration, and I'm married to an immigrant, for instance. I believe in conflict resolution, and I think that the world will get better in the future with more education in that area, but at the same time, I think there are few more dangerous paradigms than Peace Studies.
Etc. etc. etc.
I think these are shitty questions.
Being forced to answer a certain way that is not at all reflective of one's view is misleading.
I quit after the 7th question out of frustration.
It definitely shows the limitation of surveys in general and the Pew Center’s surveys in particular. I’ve quoted the Pew Center many times since they are one of the few that do surveys in Islamic countries. But I have always had questions about their questions. For example, they record levels of “hate” but they don’t delve into the nature of that hate. There’s deep-seated hate and there’s manipulated hate; the later is quite common in Arab societies. Saying “I hate you” may be a way of manipulating your behavior. I’d like to see a break down. And these are they only two ways of breaking-down the “feeling.”
Zogby also did a survey in Arab countries. All of these surveys showed that the people regurgitate the opinion of their state-controlled media. They prove nothing except what we already know about the powerful in control of those countries. Zogby also included a “blank question” and those results were more interesting but I don’t think he understood them. He found there was resentment against the US proportional, from the distance of oil wealth. The theme was “you only love us for our oil” and it was expressed most by those that had none. Had he reflected on the matter he would have detected a “manipulated hate” that seeks to get concessions because they have nothing else to offer. But despite coming from an Arab background (or because of it) he couldn’t see the next step in an inquiry.
These surveys also don’t measure intransigence. Are those surveyed wedded to their positions or can they be swayed. Thus, the Pew surveys show majority of support for bin Laden in many locations. But is it a deep commitment to his cause or a symbolic manner of saying “fuck you”. Inquiring minds want to know.
Post a Comment