Category Archives: Social

head-counts are representative, percentages are shady

For who knows how long, I’ve been suspect of nearly everything that comes with a percentage, especially surveys or polls. Why? Because surveys or polls use percentages in much the same way that Gorgias used rhetoric. They make grandiose claims about a multitude of concerns, with the hope that the towering figures will awe the masses. 67% of doctors agree on the cause of ‘X’, 95% of Europeans say ‘Y’ about the Euro-crisis, 78% of women prefer shampoo ‘Z’, and most recently: ‘In the US, 46% hold creationist view of human origins.’

My issue is not with the particular topic of discussion (i.e. human origins); my problem is with what the shady percentage conveys. Specifically, this figure suggests a reality that is neither consistent with the implication of its own claim nor with how things are or might be in reality. Quoi? We’ll start with the first half. As of today, at 11.09am (UK time) the US population stands at 313,658,703.* Thus, when the study says ’46% hold creationist view of human origins’ it is implying that 144,283,003.38 Americans agree with that view.

However, and this is the second half of my problem, that 144,283,003.38 is not reality–i.e. it does not reflect the true number of those who in fact hold the creationist view. The survey indicates that only ‘a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia’ (emphasis added). If my maths are right: 46% of that 1,012 sample is 465.52, and that figure is a pathetic 0.000148% of the US population. Call me cynical, but I fear that if the study did involve every single US citizen the number (or percentage) of those holding a creationist view of human origins would not reach the proposed 46%.

I can understand why surveys like this one opt for percentages instead or solid numbers. It sounds better to say 46%, which implies a significant portion of the country, than to say 465.52 people, who could fit into a small neighborhood in a medium-sized town. It made better sense for Gorgias to rhetorically woo the crowds into thinking he possessed great skill in a multitude of professions and avoid circumstances in which he would have to prove he had none.

_____________________________
* This figure is flexible for the simple fact it represents registered persons/births. Just for fun: by the time I finished this post (i.e. 11.51am), the population grew to: 313,658,902. Mazal Tov!

fuel leak

YahooNews released a story about the current costs of fuel/petrol (or, “gas”, for my American friends), which shows how various countries compare–i.e. who’s the most expensive? While it’s at the bottom of the page, here are the leaders (with conversions made for the American readers in brackets):

Country             £/litre             (US conversion: $/gal)*
1. Norway……………….1.64                             12.01
2. Turkey………………..1.62                             11.87
3. Netherlands………1.48                             10.83
4. Italy……………………1.46                             10.69
5. Greece………………1.45                             10.60
6. Denmark……………1.43                             10.46
7. UK………………………1.42                             10.37
8. Sweden………………1.41                             10.32
9. Eritrea…………………1.41                             10.32
10. Belgium……………1.40                             10.23

Notice who’s not on this list? America. Why? Because they’re not even close to struggling to the same degree.

________________________________
* This figure is operating on two variables: 1) one gallon = 4.55 litres, and 2) £1 = $1.61, which is today’s conversion rate.

how to change but stay the same

I try to keep watch for articles on Facebook’s every-adapting policies and accessibility, and what useful tips there might be on the subject. Yesterday I found this big-brother sounding article, “Who’s Watching You on Facebook?” (The use of phrases like, “being spied on”, “snooping”, and “prying eyes” really helps the motif). In many respects it unfolded in the usual way and reached the typical conclusion: “other people besides close friends and family see your stuff, so be careful what you post on Facebook, otherwise it’ll bite your keester clean off.” It then gave four examples from four different areas of life where the four seemingly hapless individuals got screwed.*

What troubled me about the article, however, and it appears in similar articles dealing with social media, is how it identifies the locus of wrongdoing. (I should say, how it inconsistently identifies it). In only one of the four examples does the article correctly name the real problem–albeit implicitly: if you owe money to debt-collectors, “[i]gnoring the problem won’t make it go away.” Conclusion: own up to what you owe and pay it. However, whatever standard or methodology used for that one is clearly chucked out the window when it comes to the two other big ones–i.e. “job hunting” and “legal snooping”.

With the first one, the fault is not with the person who drinks uncontrollably, reduces him-/herself to drugs, and/or brags about getting hammered or flying around in a yellow submarine; nor is it with the person who displays pictures where onlookers would otherwise have to pay a monthly fee. No, the fault is placed squarely on the decision to publicize such things on Facebook. And the reason why this act of publicizing is a bad move? It’s not because there is something wrong with the behavior itself, but because doing so might kill your chance for getting a job.

With the second one, the fault is not with Dorothy McGurk’s sinister decision to lie about the extent of her physical condition and milk the system for $850/month. No, the fault is placed on her thoughtless decision to post information and photos of herself, which show her to be getting on just fine–and enjoying things in the process. And why was this thoughtless decision bad? It’s not because Dorothy knowingly cheated the ones who otherwise seek to help those in (real) need, but because she will now no longer get $850/month.

In all of this there seems to be an underlying accusation against those ostensibly doing the spying, snooping, and prying–how dare they invade people’s private lives!–while those who lie, cheat, steal, debauch and demean themselves are portrayed as victims. Moreover, the tone of the article’s summary comes across as, “Let me show you how not to make these rookie mistakes.” (This seems to me to operate on a modified version of, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”). Thus, the article seems to offer advice on making superficial changes without affecting what truly matters; how to change but stay the same; how to divert the attention off one’s own evil and focus entirely on the apparent evil of those who disapprove.

I would ask, “What the hell is happening with society?”, but I think that would begin to answer the question.

_______________________________________
* I will admit that the “password” example illustrates excessiveness on the part of the employer, and that type of power-play should be resisted.

surprised myself (or, just lucky)

Brought to my attention by Jeremy Myers, I just took a quiz on ‘civic literacy’ over at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute website. The quiz begins with the following foreboding question and follow-up statement:

Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

My score: 22 out of 33 question right, or 66.67%. I’ll throw in the added variable that I did this while enduring the beginning stages of a massive migraine. So, that would mean my score otherwise might have been 66.68%. Or not. Maybe I just got lucky.

What I found interesting (or sad, really) was the comparative table at the end of the quiz–the one that shows the differences between ‘citizens’ and ‘elected officials’ on each of the 33 questions. The interesting/sad part: only on four questions did ‘elected officials’ do better than ‘citizens’, and the margin of difference is not that wide; on every other question, the ‘citizens’ hammered the ‘elected officials’.

Okay, time to sleep off this migraine.

words being Fry-ed

For the past two Sundays evenings my lovely bride and I have been watching a series by the inimitable, Stephen Fry.*  The series is called, “Fry’s Planet Word” and for those able to access BBC iPlayer, episode 1 is here and episode 2 is here.

To speak generally, Fry in episode 1 explores not only the nature of language as a distinctly human characteristic but also its evolution, especially the 2000+ languages that ostensibly emerge from a single tongue. Along the way Fry intimates a concern about the apparent devolution of language (or, linguicide–as he will later call it) brought about by the advancement and development of the ‘global village’, where a small number of languages are becoming the lingua franca of this village. The concern is therefore not with the interrelationships with other peoples and cultures that can be and are formed; instead the concern is with the loss of particular languages that are essential to the unique identities of those peoples and cultures.

Then, and retaining the generality of my comments, Fry in episode 2 picks up the theme of ‘language as identity’ and places it at the forefront of his investigation. Specifically Fry examines accents and dialects not only as unique in form and character but also inextricably bound to people’s sense of self. It is here that the concern intimated in episode 1 receives explicit attention. The attention falls on those languages or dialects that have struggled to survive, not because of the history (or, historical existence) of the language or dialect of a particular people but because that language or dialect retains, reflects and recalls the history of the people who possess it. Hence Fry’s (appropriate and needed) concern: if a language or dialect is lost, the identity of those who possess it is also lost; and that loss would truly be a tragedy, especially if the loss was the result of a desire to create a linguistic homogeny suitable for life within the global village.

I’ll end this post with a quote from the conclusion of episode 2, followed by a slight reapplication.  While the context of this quote is people’s fascination with identifying themselves with a particular football club, the substance of Fry’s remarks apply to things beyond that fascination.

Those who say, ‘Well, it doesn’t matter to me; I have no sense of identity. It doesn’t matter to me that I’m British. It doesn’t matter to me that I’m English. It doesn’t matter to me that I’m from Shropshire or Yorkshire or Kent or Norfolk.’ Maybe they’re right, but I can’t feel like that; I have this . . . I can’t help but belong. I think it was Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister of the earlier part of the 20th century, who said he was a patriot but he wasn’t a nationalist. And they said to him, ‘What do you mean by that?’ He said, ‘Well, I think a patriot loves his country but a nationalist hates everybody else’s country.’ (56.54–57.33)

To broaden the application of Fry’s comments: patriotism is people loving and cherishing specific aspects of their culture or nation, those things that make them who they are and distinguish them from others cultures or nations; but that does not mean they necessarily hate those who are unlike them. Nationalism, on the other hand, is people arrogantly perceiving aspects of their culture or nation as so unique and superior that such things must become universal for other cultures or nations. Nationalism is hateful because it has little-to-no regard, respect or love for the unique and historically rich identity of others.

___________________________________
* Stephen Fry is one of several people in the UK I would love to meet. So if Fry is reading this, or if someone has connections: if ever in Cheltenham, then coffee, tea or lunch–my treat.

early news from australia and new zealand

As suspected, Harold Camping’s 21-May prediction is wrong. The catastrophic events (specifically in New Zealand) that he predicted failed to occur; no descent of the Lord, no trumpets, no angelic shouts, no dead rising from the ground, no ‘rapture’ of the saints as–1Thess 4.16-17 states.* Nothing. Camping’s passionate, emphatic and grand predictions were simply that; there is not any truth to be found in them.

I noted earlier that this is not the first time that Camping has been premature (and wrong) in his end-time predictions.  I find it a tad intriguing that Camping’s previously failed prediction resulted from his (confessed) failure to read/consider Jeremiah. He claims that his revised prediction (i.e. the one that failed today) had stronger and more substantial support because of his reading Jeremiah. My intrigue is this. In reading through Jeremiah in order to bolster his false predictions, he would have come across this passage:

Then the Lord said to me, ‘The [false] prophets are prophesying falsehood my name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds. Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who are prophesying in my name, although it was not I who sent them–yet they keep saying, “There will be no sword or famine in this land”–by sword and famine those prophets shall meet their end’ (14.14-15)

While the specific circumstances of this passage and Camping’s are different (one predicting a time of peace and prosperity, the other predicting catastrophe), Camping must have seen the fundamental principle at work in this passage: don’t claim to speak for God, or a message (as though it is) from God when in reality God has not spoken; it doesn’t end well for those who do so. Camping’s failed prediction today places him in the category of a false prophet.

Thankfully, for Camping’s sake, the rules for what to do with false prophets don’t apply (i.e. stoning to death); but this ability to dodge rocks does not give him a pass to continue prophesying falsely. He needs to stop. He is performing a great disservice to the many he has duped and to the truth he claims to uphold, namely he is touting false beliefs based on faulty views of the Bible. As restitution, I think Camping should at least pay back all the people who cashed in their retirement accounts in order to promote his deception.

_________________________________
* Of course, we must read this passage in its larger context to know its primary focus/meaning.

around the web in a few minutes

Just got back from lunch and went through my usual routine of checking the web (and writing this up) before burying myself in the books.  Admittedly, much of what I found came from YahooNews, but it was fairly interesting stuff nonetheless.  So, here ya go:

First, a series of clips of the world’s most dangerous aiports.  The one on the golf course cracks me up. I can just about imagine the pro-shop: clubs, extra balls, tees, gloves, shirts, hats . . . ear plugs.

Here’s something for those wanting to generate catchy CV–specifically, what not to do. Either I have a wrong idea about what a CV is meant to look like, or I’m in the clear because I took a straightforward approach.  (I’m open to advice and even criticisms).

Finally, a look at the dreaded, ‘Let’s just split the bill and call it even‘ ploy at group dinners. Reading between the lines on this one, I kind of got the feel that the writer (Donna Fergusen) was using this story to get some stuff out of her system.  I could be wrong. 

All right. Back to the books for me.