Re: New Web Study

"Michael S. Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Thursday, the 27th of November, 2003
> 
> Carlos Navarrete wrote:
>   Up until now, I have primarily
>   had left-leaning university students as participants in the study, and
> would
>   like to have broader views represented in the study. If you have a few
>   minutes, I would appreciate if you would take the survey. It is at:
> 
> My views are very important to me, therefore I refuse to reduce them
> to the flat idiocy of the possible "answers" to such a study. Count me
> in your dataset only as a "refuses to respond".
> 
>                   Mike Morris
>            ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


Besides what Mike wrote, the first section has methodological flaws.
Several of the questions are compound, and ought to be multi-part,
or separate questions.  For example, I think the country is seriously
messed up, but needs more freedom, not a strongman.
There was no way to answer in that manner.

A clue:  separate each policy position into one question per position.
Ask another question about motivations.  There are people who would
answer these questions this way:

Q. Do you support a government financed health insurance plan?
A. Yes

Q. On a scale of 1 to 5, five being highest, how closely do you
agree with Senator Edward Hennedy on the health care issue?
A. 1

Said respondent would be an idiot, but such people exist.

The "researchers" also posted into libertarian newsgroups,
then trotted out the hoary old liberal-conservative one-
dimensional axis for the purpose of having respondents
describe themselves.  Libertarian is nowhere an option.
They also left no room for a "write-in" response.
How could I enter my usual response to racial ID questions:
"Human?"

UCLA Center For Behavior, Evolution, and Culture 

http://bec.ucla.edu/index.htm  

Their speaker series seems to have some interesting topics.
I'd go to hear Jared Diamond, for one.  Why the sloppy
survey design?

Kevin