PeterMP

Members
  • Content Count

    2,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not sure what you mean. How do you think they found the people that they are considering Native Americans without a question about it? Qualtrics did the screening for them (and apparently Qualtrics originally screened for "Native American Heritage", but all of those people then didn't self-identify as "Native American" racially so they had them go back and redo the screening.) "During initial data collection, Qualtrics recruited participants who identified as having “Native heritage”. Some of these participants, however, did not self-identify as Native Americans. When we learned about this targeting strategy, we asked Qualtrics to only target individuals who self-identified as Native American. Because we did not intend to recruit individuals who identified as having Native heritage but did not identify racially as Native American, we did not include these participants in the main manuscript. In this appendix, we report analyses that include these participants." https://osf.io/b89xq/?view_only=b6a148dd892e4619bf61fcd0ea2e8918 The study included people screened by Qualtrics as being Native American. And I suspect that's actually the biggest difference between the two polls. As somebody else suggested, I suspect that the Washington Post polls do end up pulling in people that like Elizabeth Warren, while I suspect the Berkely study actually weeded out many of those people (and that jives with their results in that while a very small sample size people that identified as having a Native American heritage, but not being Native American don't care about the Redskins names.) And realistically, that sort of issue isn't surprising. About 18% of people that self-identify as atheist will also say they believe in God or a higher power. So in a very large population of people that aren't atheist polling the attitudes of atheist is going to heavily depend on whether you pull those people out or not. I suspect by asking if you have Native heritage and then asking if you are Native American (as Qualtrics appears to have done (though the Berkely study doesn't give you data on the Qualtrics screening process really), you do get a different sample set. Though, I'm not sure I'd include one set as biased vs. the other. (I do feel like looking at this more, the Washington Post study did find 21% say that the term Redskins is disrepectful.)
  2. That question was more put to SHF who said he would never do a survey the way that Berkely does (while doing such surveys is a big part of Qualtrics business, which is what the Berkely group used). I wouldn't say that one is more flawed than the other based on what I know. But given all other things are being equal, I'd lean toward the larger more recent survey. Though since, you've directly commented, I'd ask why you think that Califan's post shows that it was "very poor" and the Post one not? (From my perspective Califan brought up 4 issues: 1. I've already addressed the idea that the Washington Post data is public. It at least isn't easily public today. Maybe it was in 2016, but it isn't hard to believe that the Berkely group wasn't able to access it online in 2020. 2. The numbers. While when dealing with millions of people, the difference between 500 and 1000 isn't very significant. But no pollster is going to turn a larger poll unless there is a reason to. 3. How you do polls doesn't tend to affect the result much IF the poll is done well. Online vs. phone aren't very different. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/07/phone-vs-online-surveys-why-do-respondents-answers-sometimes-differ-by-mode/ If anything, given the topic, it seems that an online poll is probably better. The topic isn't overly sensitive, but generally online polls can be done well and if there is a sensitive topic online tends to be better than the phone. But that there's a big difference of the other that makes one "very poor" and the other not, just isn't reasonable. 4. In terms of his point about the language used in the study and how we wouldn't do that to African Americans, it is in fact done. The Berkely study actually discusses that (and the leader of the Berkely study is an African American): "First, this literature largely focuses on the function of identity centrality for non-Native racial minorities, showing, for example, that African American college students who are high (vs. low) in identity centrality report experiencing more discrimination, which in turn predicts greater psychological distress (Sellers & Shelton, 2003)." From my perspective, two of the things Califan said appear to be just wrong. People do study African Americans and their responses to different things and in the context of doing so do study and take into account how important identifying as African American or how strongly they identify as African American is to them. The WashPo data today isn't easily available to the public. So none of those things point to a "very poor" survey vs. a poll only flawed in the context of being flawed in the way that all polls are flawed.) I don't know much about Qualtrics and how they do their online panels. But assuming they do a good job at making them, there is no real reason to believe it is wrong vs. the Washington Post survey. And I certainly have no reason to believe that they do a less good job than the Washington Post at setting up a representative population of Native Americans.
  3. @goskins10 Again, I've never said the Berkely poll isn't flawed. And even the Post acknowledges the difficulties in survey Native American populations. Though I'd be curious as to why you think it is bad, and the Post okay. In terms of @Califan007, I'd ask whether than just insulting the people, maybe consider they are telling the truth. The link in the articles ("Exact question wording, order and percentage results can be found at wapo.st/pollarchive.") take you to this page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polling/2019/05/24/washington-post-poll-archive/ On that page, you can find this link: "12/16 to 4/14 - Washington Post - Native Americans - Full trend and detailed methods" Which takes you too this page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/?itid=lk_inline_manual_133 Which of course doesn't actually contain that poll that I see. So no, today if I want the actual total results (e.g. demographic), etc., I can't (easily) get it based on following their links. (Now, I'm not suggesting that the Washington Post is doing something untowards and is trying to cover up a flawed poll vs. just an large organization with lots of links and over time it is just hard to keep track of where all of the links go and something has changed since 2016, and they haven't bothered to update it. And I'll point out that took me like 2 minutes. Rather than claiming something that isn't true is true, I took 2 minutes to try it myself.)
  4. I wouldn't ever say that a poll is a good reason to do thing. And as I've suggested, I'm not sure of the quality of the Berkley poll. But there's good reasons to think that the Post 2014 poll is badly flawed too (as I've said good polling data on this is scarce). The biggest things it they again based their poll on self-identification and only polled ~500 people with no real efforts to normalized based on known population demographics. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/on-the-shameful-and-skewed-redskins-poll/ The Berkely poll is still larger with respect to the actual population of interest, more recent, and attempted to determine how engaged the people were in Native culture. The Berkely polls shows that people more engaged in native culture are more likely to find it offensive and because it actually tried to poll Native Americans and not just people that identify as such, it seems likely it actually polled more people that are actually Native American.
  5. Let's see, can we think about why the Berkeley poll might be more accurate? Oh, maybe it wasn't done 14 years ago? Maybe its possible that people's attitudes have changed over the last 14 years. Like maybe based on polling 14 years ago, most Americans were against same sex marriages and about 1/2 of Americans thought that same sex should be illegal? And maybe here's another: It actually surveyed more Native Americans. How about, it was actually setup to capture what actual Native Americans thought and wasn't a throw on question to a national survey that wasn't actually designed to capture what Native Americans thought and didn't attempt to representatively capture Native American attitudes? https://ipclinic.org/2015/08/03/designers-of-that-2004-annenberg-survey-on-the-redskins-name-the-sample-was-unpresentative/ As part of that, the Berkely poll delved more into why people said they were Native American (e.g. it asked about their involvement in Native American culture) and so isn't just based on self identification. I've got no real issue if you say there is no good polling on this issue (which is essentially what I said in my first post), but to hold onto a poll that is 14 years old, that surveyed fewer Native Americans, and wasn't at the time designed to actually capture Native American attitudes in a representative manner over a more recent, larger poll that was designed specifically to capture the opinions of Native Americans is just stupid.
  6. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-the-fleecing-of-the-american-worker/?utm_source=pocket-newtab A long piece on the gutting of organized labor in the US. I guess the biggest take home is if you fire somebody illegally for organizing a union and the company is found guilty, the worse case scenario is that you have to rehire the person, pay some back wages, and do something like apologize and promise not to do it again. There's no larger penalty in terms of acting to hold down wages/workers rights.
  7. I'm saying his statement about the polling data isn't likely correct. In general, I tend to try not to offend people. But my point above was more about being accurate.
  8. The polling data on this is very minimal. Especially to use the word vast minority. https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/ The Washington Post has twice done two polls of about 500 people (very small sample size) and once found 9 in 10 are okay with it, but the other time found 32% are offended. And a more recent larger poll puts the number offended even higher.
  9. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-most-important-scientist-you-ve-never-heard-of?utm_source=pocket-newtab "For 60 years, Americans poisoned themselves by pumping leaded gasoline into their cars. Then Clair Patterson, a scientist who helped build the atomic bomb and discovered the true age of the Earth, took on a billion-dollar industry." We're almost certainly looking at similar things today. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newborn-babies-chemicals-exposure-bpa/ "TSCA does not require most chemicals to be tested for safety before they are approved for widespread use. Because of this, Trasande said, less than half of the 3,000 high-production volume chemicals on the marketplace have toxicity data, and less than one-fifth have toxicity testing data on the effects on developing organs."
  10. I'm not sure when it was maximized and that would certainly be based on the population you looked at. That researchers that most likely came from more wealthy back grounds found people that had time to be involved in studies who also were likely upper class families concluded that play time was heaviest in the 1950s wouldn't surprise me. But that's not what kids are doing in their unsupervised and unscheduled time today. Even if I send my kids outside, they want to take electronic devices Even in your link: "Play with traditional toys was associated with an increased quality and quantity of language compared with play with electronic toys,100 particularly if the video toys did not encourage interaction." That requires structured/scheduled time to get my kids to do. Even for something like board games or card games, that requires me saying at this time (scheduled and supervised) we're going to play this game. And that trend had started into the 1980s. There's a difference between saying kids need to play and get physical activity and saying kids need unscheduled and unsupervised times. Today, those tings are actually often conflicting. (They actually need both, but the issue is to what extent). Especially in today's world if kids are given unscheduled and unsupervised time, they tend to use that time to sit in front of an electronic device. Which have their own issues as your link points out. (This gets into a larger issue of marketing to kids. And with that, I'll let this go to not to derail this thread.)
  11. For most of human history, kids were put to work when they were very young and did not have years of freedom. That era in between when child labor laws started to be put into place and farming became heavily automated and based on equipment that couldn't easily and safely be operated by kids and their labor was no longer necessary to the 2000s or so when you see increased supervision of children (I guess maybe in the 1990s) and the number of child activities increased and so did scheduling is actually the anomaly when viewed in the larger historical perspective. If you go back into even the 1950s, except for in more wealthy families, kids didn't actually have a lot of free time for unsupervised and unscheduled activities, and certainly if you go back into the 1920s in general they even have less. And back into the 1800s, the situation is even worse (nothing like being locked in a room for hours a day and being forced to work in unsafe and unsanitary conditions during your childhood). I'm also then not at all sure that there is a link between supervision and scheduling and anxiety, obesity, and depression as sort of implied in your post.
  12. They found this mutation in one variant of what they've sequenced. It isn't at all clear it is currently a dominant strain of what is spreading in the US. And with one report, might not even be accurate. Your reading too much in to this too soon. The most simple explanation for things being different here than China is the way that China really shut things down.
  13. Hopefully getting the virus does give immunity and at least some immunity to multiple strains. It would be great if the less lethal one gives immunity to less lethal ones. Assuming this is accurate, I'll also point out this is actually almost certainly partially a consequence of social distancing. Viruses tend to become less lethal when it is harder for them to spread. When it is easy to spread, lethality doesn't matter as much evolutionary and you can get a more lethal version (as what appears to have happened with the Spanish flu). Something else to keep in mind when debating social distancing vs. re-opening the economy.
  14. Right now, there are some smart economists that are arguing that if we manage things properly, it is sustainable. There are probably more just as smart that argue it isn't. I don't honestly claim to know. I would suggest that even if it is sustainable that doesn't mean that there aren't some negative consequences. Maybe those can be dealt with too.